Who is Michael the Archangel?

Click here for the new and updated article:  Who is Michael the Archangel 2014_08_27

Below is the older version of the article which is less complete.

Is Michael the Archangel Jesus or is Michael just a mighty angel?  Does the Bible answer this question?

We believe that a careful examination of scriptures will provide compelling evidence that Michael the Archangel is Jesus.  Yet since Hebrews 1:4-14 shows that Jesus is greater than the angels, how can Jesus possibly be an angel?

The honest and sincere student of scripture will want to carefully examine the evidence. 



The word “Michael” in Daniel 12:1 comes from Strong’s 4317 meaning, “who is like God.”  Brown Driver & Briggs Hebrew Lexicon also agrees with this definition.

Who else is like God but Jesus Himself?



The word “angel” itself, Strong’s #32 is defined as, “a messenger; especially an “angel”; by implication, a pastor.”

On occasion, the Greek and Hebrew words for angel simply have the meaning of messenger and do not refer to angels. Here are examples where the Greek and Hebrew do not refer to angels:

Matt 11:10 (NKJV ) “For this is he of whom it is written: “Behold, I send My messenger before Your face, Who will prepare Your way before You.’”  [Here Jesus is speaking of John]

Luke 7:24 (NKJV) “When the messengers of John had departed, He (Jesus) began to speak to the multitudes concerning John:”

James 2:25 (NKJV ) “Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way?” 

Gen 32:3 (KJV) “And Jacob sent messengers before him to Esau his brother” 

Many say Jesus cannot be Michael because Jesus is not an angel.  The scriptures quoted above prove that the Greek and Hebrew words for angel broadly mean “messenger” and can apply to others besides angels.  Jesus is God’s ultimate and supreme messenger.  That is why he is called the “Logos” or the Word of God, i.e. God’s spokesperson or messenger.

Jesus is called an “angel” or “messenger in Malachi 3:1 (NKJV)  where we read, “Behold, I send My messenger (John the Baptist Matt 11:10-11), And he will prepare the way before Me  (Yawheh). And the Lord (Jesus), whom you seek, Will suddenly come to His temple (“Which Temple ye are.” 1 Cor 3:17), Even the Messenger (Jesus) of the covenant, In whom you delight. Behold, He is coming,” Says the LORD of hosts.

In Revelation 20:1, 2 we have a great angel coming down from heaven with a chain in his hand to bind Satan. This great angel is generally accepted to be Jesus who is the one responsible for binding Satan.

Jesus  is the “seed of the woman” who crushes the serpent’s head.  Hebrews 2:14 (RVIC) says, “… that through death he might bring to nought the one having the power of death, that is, the devil;”  Is there an angel powerful enough to bind Satan?  Of course not.

Yes, it is Jesus who binds Satan. Gen 3:15 shows that the seed (Jesus) crushes Satan’s head. More broadly, it is The Christ, Head and Body who binds Satan (Rom 16:20). Jesus death’ on the Cross guaranteed Him the authority to destroy Satan (Hebrews 2:14).



We find the word archangel in 1 Thes 4:16 and Jude 9.  It is from Strong’s 743 meaning “a chief angel,”  Let’s break the word up into its two parts.  “Arch” is Strong’s 757 meaning, “to be first (in political rank or power):– reign (rule) over”  The other part, “angel” is from Strong’s 32, meaning, “a messenger, especially an angel.” 

So how does comparing 1 Thess 4:16 and Jude 9 help us to identify who Michael is?  Well we know that Jesus descends from heaven with the “voice of Archangel” and that Michael is the “Archangel.”  So therefore, Michael must be Jesus.  After all, I cannot have your voice, even if I can use your trumpet.  So Jesus must be using his own voice, yes the voice of the archangel (meaning chief messenger – the Word of God – the Logos). 



In Daniel 12:1 (NKJV), Michael is described as, “the great prince (Strong’s 8269)who stands watch over the sons of your people (Israel).”

Compare Isaiah 9:6 which calls Jesus the “prince of peace” (Strong’s 8269)

Jesus is also called the “prince” in the New Testament

Acts 3:15: “prince of life”

Acts 5:11: “prince and Savior”

Remember how in Daniel 12:1, Michael is described as, “the great prince who stands watch over the sons of your people (Israel).”

Compare with Matthew 2:6:

Matt 2:6: “out of thee [Bethlehem] shall come forth a governor, Who shall be shepherd of my people Israel.”  (Micah 5:2 Governor/Ruler = Strongs 4910-6.)

In both cases Michael/Jesus is ruler over Israel.  Does Israel have two spiritual rulers – Michael and Jesus?  Of course not.  Jesus is Michael.

In contrast, in Eph 2:2 Satan is the “prince of the power of the air”



The argument that Michael is “one [of many] of the Chief Princes” in Daniel 10:13 is not correct.

Notice the more accurate rendering in Young’s Literal Translation –

Daniel 10:13 `And the head of the kingdom of Persia is standing over-against me twenty and one days, and lo, Michael, first of the chief heads, hath come in to help me, and I have remained there near the kings of Persia;”

Albert Barnes’ Commentary:   “the first.” That is, the first in rank of the “princes,” or the angels. In other words, Michael, the archangel.””

John Gill’s Commentary:  “…is no other than Christ the Son of God… who is “one,” or “the first of the chief Princes””

The word “first of,” sometimes translated “one of” is Strongs 259 meaning, “a numeral from 258; properly, united, i.e. one; or (as an ordinal) first:” This word is translated “first” four (4) times in the book of Daniel, i.e. Dan 11:1 which says, “…in the first year of Darius the Mede…” KJV.  So we see that Daniel 10:13 is not indicating that there are several chief heads or princes.

The word translated “heads” or more often “princes” is Strongs 8269, the same Hebrew word as in Daniel 12:1 associated with Michael the Archangel who is the great prince.

The word “chief” as in “chief princes” is from Strongs 7223 and it means “first, in place, time or rank.”

So Michael is the first or number one prince.  In other words, Michael is Jesus.

Dan 12:1 calls him the “GREAT prince” and Dan 10:21 calls him “Michael your prince.”  Over Israel, God would have appointed His highest ranking prince.  Right?  Is there a prince that ranks higher than Jesus?   Another spirit being would not have been given more responsibility and authority than Jesus.


Paul tells us about Jesus in Hebrews 3:3 that He, “…was counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as he who hath builded the house hath more honour than the house.” So Jesus is the one that built Moses’ house (the nation of Israel under the Law Covenant).  As the builder of the house, Jesus was the main messenger appearing to Moses at the burning bush (Ex 3:2) and on Mount Sinia (Gal 3:19; Acts 7:53) as the Word or representative of Jehovah.

The point is that during the Jewish age, Jesus was the chief prince/messenger/angel speaking to Moses on behalf of Jehovah/ Yahweh, at the burning bush and on Mount Sinai.  If Michael is the chief prince of Israel, Michael must be Jesus, the chief prince.  Otherwise, would you conclude that Michael is higher ranking than Jesus?  If Michael was the chief prince and Jesus was not, than how is Jesus superior to Michael?  Therefore they must both be the same person.

We find more evidence of Jesus activity with ancient Israel here:  Jude 5 (ESV) Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe.



Daniel 11 brings us up to the time of the end and Daniel 12 brings us 5 signs of the time of the end:

1) Increase in knowledge (i.e. technology, mobile phones, Internet, etc.)

2) Increase in travel (cars, planes, space travel)

3) “children of your people delivered” (Israel a nation)

4) Great time of trouble (world wars, terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, Mao, Hitler, Stalin, etc. murder over 100 million non-combatants last century)

5) Book of Daniel unsealed and explained (If not Volume 3, “Thy Kingdom Come,” then how is that fulfilled?)

So if this does not prove that we have been in the time of the end and that Jesus (pictured here as Michael) has returned, then what does this all mean?

Once prophecy is fulfilled, it’s meaning becomes more evident.  For example, in Jesus day, people looking at Daniel 9 (70 weeks) thought that Messiah would defeat the Romans and set up the earthly kingdom at that time.  Once history played out, the purpose of the Messiah became clear to Jesus disciples.  In spite of the miraculous evidences, people rationalized what they knew, and then rejected Jesus. 

Based on Daniel 12:4, Sir Isaac Newton concluded that some day man would travel at 50 miles per hour.  Who would have imagined then, how much greater a fulfillment of prophecy would take place.  The miraculous evidences today are inescapable.  Perhaps the biggest underlying issue is the dramatic changes on planet earth in the past two centuries, particularly Israel restored, then the increase in knowledge & travel and for the first time in history, great trouble that impacts the whole world – not isolated geographically.  Clearly God somehow has a hand in all this.  Right?  How else are these changes coming about?  How then is it such a leap of faith to imagine that the invisible returned Jesus, God’s Chief Messenger in accomplishing this?

As is historically evident, this increase in knowledge spans every area, i.e. science, technology, medicine, agriculture, the Bible, etc.  Regarding the Bible, Daniel says that at the time of the end the Wise would Understand (Dan 12:9-12).  Daniel says this in regard to the 1290 and 1335 days and indicates the book of Daniel will be unsealed.  This was fulfilled in Volume 3 of Studies in the Scriptures, “They Kingdom Come.”  If we are wrong, would you then say that we cannot understand Daniel today and its meaning is yet to be revealed in the future?  On the other hand, if the book of Daniel is now unsealed, than Michael has already stood up. Right?  If now fulfilled how, how do you think it was?  Who explained the meaning of Daniels prophecies if not Brother Russell in volume 3 “Thy Kingdom Come”?

Most people make a mistake with end time prophecies, thinking that everything happens quickly, however most parables and historical prophecies play out over centuries, as in the prophecy of the destruction of Tyre, which was fulfilled in stages taking several centuries till all the prophetic declarations were fulfilled. Even the Apostles were thinking that Jesus might  be setting up his kingdom in their time until Jesus told them it was not for them to know when (Acts 1:6).  In Daniel 12 – When Michael Stands up in the time of the end: Knowledge increases.  One source claims the world’s knowledge is doubling every two years now – http://www.digitalstrategyconsulting.com/netimperative/news/2011/06/worlds_data_more_than_doubling.php 



Understanding the role of the Lord’s people at the time of Jesus second presence can best be learned by a careful study of the scriptures relating to this topic.  We recommend the link below as a good place to start.


325 comments to Who is Michael the Archangel?

  • Hank

    Hi Bob;

    Just throwing out some things. Luke 4:34,”art thou come to destroy us?”

    Why didn’t the demon say, did you come so Jehovah can destroy us? Is it because I can find nowhere where a demon uses God’s name Jehovah? Or is it because thet were aware of the authority this one had? Consider,”Thou art the Son of God.” They knew who he was. And what did Jesus do? “And rebuking them.” Luke 4:41

    I am sure you agree Jehovah is the Creator? Rev 4:11
    But did not His Son have apart in helping with all things created, except himself? Is that not what only-begotten means?

    2 Sam 22:16,”Then the channels of the sea appeared,The foundations of the world were laid bare, By the rebuke of Jehovah,At the blast of the breath of his nostrils.” David new Jehovah could rebuke for he penned those words at Ps 18:15. Asaph wrote,”At thy rebuke, O God of Jacob.” Ps 76:6 Again he wrote,”They perish at the rebuke of thy countenence.” Ps 80:16 “At thy rebuke they fled.” Ps 104:7 Isaiah wrote,”they are full of the wrath of Jehovah, the rebuke of thy God.” 51:20

    There are other verses showing Jehovah as a rebuker. But how many times by Jesus or a spirit?

    1.Jude 9,”May Jehovah rebuke you.”Christian Greek Scriptures in 12 languages, including Heb., by Elias Hutter, Nuremberg,1599.

    There are seven others that do so. “when contending with the devil.” AVS 1901 Diaglot “when contending with the enemy.” under the Greek,”when with the accuser contending he reasonsoned about the of Moses body, not he dared a judgement to bring against of reviling, but he said, May rebuke thee Lord.” People sometimes think Lord means Jesus, but it means Jehovah. So I can only find one sprirt other than God using the word rebuke. Michael, which the Diaglott says under the Greek,”chief messenger.” Translated,”archangel.”

    2.”Peter took him, and began reuking him.” Mark 8:32 Jesus in the next verse rebuked Peter. So humans can do that. And shown earlier Jesus rebuked the demons, Luke 4:41. And note Mark 9:25,”he rebuked the unclean spirit, saying unto him, Thiu deaf and dumb spirit,I command thee, come out of him, and enter no more into him.”

    Not only could he rebuke as a man powerful wicked spirits, but could order them never to enter that one again.

    We have an angel named Gabriel mentioned four times in the Bible. Never rebuking, never called great prince, Never called chief messenger, never called arch angel. Michael is mentioned 5 times and fit all those things. Even casting Satan out of heaven.

    Con sider the word Messiah is mentioned 4 times, twice in Daniel. Did not give its name did it? Dan 9:25,26, says a little about him. “unto the anointed one, the prince.” AVS 1901 GNB “God’s chosen Leader.” KJV “unto the Messiah.” 26,”the anointed one will be cut off.”

    Do we agree that the anointedone or Messiah to be cut off would be Jesus? Do we agree the verse ahead of it said “the prince.” Do we agree Daniel 10:21 says,”Michael your prince?

    Do I have to add anything else? Yes I do. What is that? The other two places where Messiah is used. John 1:41,”We have found the Messiah(which is,being interpreted,Christ). Which means anointed.
    John 4:25,”I know the Messiah cometh.”

    How many people ended up back then rejected the Messiah? How many reject the prince Michael and the prince to be cut off who was coming are the same?

    The answer is many to both questions. Maybe they heard the line, You can’t have one without the other.


  • Hank

    Hi Bob;

    To your ending question about the Lamb. From your previous post you reasoned,”If angel or messenger was Jesus, why didn’t John say so?” You then said,”He describes Jesus throughout Revelation and mentions Michael in 12.”

    First, this Revelation was from God. Not Jesus, Not an angel and Not John. So your question would have been better put,why didn’t God say so?

    Second, Rev 9:1,”and I saw a star from heaven fallen unto the earth: and there was given to him the key of the pit of the abyss.” Here Jesus is referred to as a star.
    Would if one disagrees? Consider 9:11,”They have over them as king the angel of the abyss: His name in Hebrew is Abaddon, and in Greek tongue he hath the name Apollyon.”
    Now consider 20:1,”And I saw an angel coming down out of heaven, having the key of the abyss. Verse 3 says, “cast him into the abyss.” Verse 10,”And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone.”

    Gen 3:15,”he shall bruise thy head, and thou shall bruise his heel. Satan entered Judas Iscariot who told where Jesus could be found. Botton line the Devil was responsible for a perfect man to be executed. But Jesus was raised a living Spirit. 1 Peter 3:18.

    But it would be ,”he shall bruise thy head.” We could ask your question Why didn’t God name the he? I believe it was Jesus because he received the heel blow and the one who received the heel blow would give the eternal head blow.” Even thou it doesn’t say his name at those places in Revelation.

    And were the demons afraid of Jesus? They should be. Luke 9:1,”And he called the twelve together, and gave them power and authority over all demons.”
    Luke 4:33,34,,41,”that had a spirit of an unclean demon; and he cried out with a loud voice,Ah! what have we to do with thee, Jesus thou Nazarene? art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God. And demons also came out from many, crying out, and saying, Thou art the Son of God. And rebuking them, he suffered them not to speak, because they new he was the Christ.”

    So here in a mans form, he rebuked them. Now read what Michael did,”But Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing judgement, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.”

    Why might one and another see things differently? Well lets use the beginning of your post, the part that said,”In all these passages Micahael as the heavenly champion of Israel; as the guardian of the people of God against all foes earthly or spiritual(Jude 1:9). Michael is therefore regarded as the patron-angel of the Jews.”

    Why would I take no stock in what the Jews have believed for 2,500 years? For one, they are still waiting for the Messiah. Isaiah foretold there blindness. 6:9,10. Jesus verified that. Mt 13:13-15. And Paul verified it. Acts 28:25-27
    Also Daniel was told seal up the book for the understanding won’t take place till the time of the end. And some would understand and some will not understand.
    So either you are right or I am right or we are both wrong. So consider the following. The purpose of Revelation.
    In the Lord’s day.1:10 1:1″to show his servants.”
    Remember Daniel said in the end time the,but the wicked shall do wickedly; and none of the wicked shall understand.” “but they that are wise shall understand.” 12:10 And who would stand up for them? 12:1,”Michael the great prince.” When Jesus was asked a series of questions and being being the end, you can’t help but believe he would be standing up for the ones who understand and he quotes Daniel 12:1 about the great tribulation. Mt 24:21

    So I will ask you, why didn’t Matthew distinquish between Michael and jesus as to who would stand up for Go’s people at My 24:21 and Daniel 12:1?


    Enjoy conversing with you, but time is running out. The water is going bad, the food is going bad, the air is going bad,etc,ah etc.

  • Hank

    Hi Bob;

    Is 26,27,ASV 1901,”Come, my people, enter thou into thy chambers, and shut thy doors about thee: hide thyself for a little moment, until the indignation be overpast. For, behold, Jehovah cometh forth out of his place to punish the inhabitants of the earth for their iniquity: the earth shall also disclose her blood, and shall no more cover her slain.”

    Mt 24:22,AVS 1901,”In fact,unless those days were cut short no flesh would be saved; but on account of the chosen ones those days will be cut short.”

    Do you agree, thatn their is a salvation for some?

    Rev 7:13,AVS 1901,”And one of the elders answered, saying unto me, These that are arrayed in the white robes, who are they, and whence came they?”
    14,”These are they that come out of the great tribulation.”

    Note what Jesus said about the great tribulation. Mt 24:21, AVS 1901,”then shall be a great tribulation, such as hath not been from the beginning of the world until now,no, nor ever shall be.”

    Now again consider Daniel where who stands up for those getting saved? Michael, the great prince. 12:1 Rember Is 9:6,”Prince of Peace.” And 12:1 also says,”and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered.” Ans 12:2 speaks of a resurrection and Mochael is the one it is talking about standing for the people, but John 5:28,29, has Jesus standing up for them.


    • Bob

      Hello Hank, sorry it’s taken me a while to answer. I agree with you that Jesus has many titles. Your example of Isa 9:6 gives four of them including “Mighty God”. He’s also called the Lamb of God, Son of Man, King of Kings and Lord of Lords, and more. As far as Michael is concerned in the Old Testament he is mentioned by name only in Daniel. He is “one of the chief princes” (Dan 10:13), the “prince” of Israel (Dan 10:21), “the great prince” (Daniel 12:1); perhaps also “the prince of the host” (Dan 8:11, YLT). In all these passages Michael appears as the heavenly champion of Israel; as the guardian of the people of God against all foes earthly or spiritual (Jude1:9). Michael is therefore regarded as the patron-angel of the Jews. Notice Dan 10:13, there the “prince of Persia” is said to have hampered the angel Gabriel until “Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me,”. So it would seem that there are various princes in the angelic and in the demonic realm. You quote John 5:28 – 29, but observe what verses 21, 25 – 27 say and cross reference those scriptures with Dan 7:13. It is the Son of God, empowered by Jehovah, who raises the dead because he is the Son of Man in Dan 7. Michael is not described as the Son of God or the Son of Man. Notice also Isa 9:7, I believe we can both agree that Isaiah is speaking about Jesus’ coming millennium, when he will reign over the world. Now, compare that scripture in Isaiah with Heb. 2:5. I just don’t see the need to add to what is written. To me, Michael the Archangel and Jesus have always been two different beings. You’ve lost me with the Lamb of God comparisons, I am a bit confused. The title “Lamb of God” would seem to me to refer to the Passover lamb typifying Jesus, I don’t see the connection with Michael the Archangel. Please explain.

  • Hank

    Hi Bob;

    Why did John refer to Jesus 28 times as the Lamb?


  • Hank

    Hi Bob;

    Just a few things, will have more later. A refresh on Is 9:6 on one of his future names,”Prince of Peace.” 1901 ASV

    Dan 12:1,”the great prince.” 1901 AVS

    There we see ut talking about Michael as “the great prince.” Hopefully we agree that Isaiah 9:6 was talking about Jesus?

    Note the last part of Dan 12:1,”every one that shall be found written in the book.” Luke 10:20,”but rejoice that your names are written in heaven.”

    Do you think Michael will deliver those? Or Jesus?

    Rev 3:5,”and I will in no wise blot his name out of the book of life.” Who is talking? 3:1 says it is the one who has the,”seven spirits of God.” Who could that be?

    Rev 4:5,”seven Spirits of God.” Who can use that power? Michael? Jesus? Lamb? Rev 5:6,”a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain, having seven horns, and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God.”

    Seven means all,complete sight. This Lamb has been given what God can do. Not Michael, not Jesus, but the Lamb.

    Wait!!! John 1:29,”On the marrow he seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold, The Lamb of God.”

    So the correct answer is Jesus and the Lamb, unless the great prince and the prince of peace are talking about the same one like what we just saw in Revelation and John.

    Paul wrote,”to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, and to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant.”

    More to come!


  • Hank

    Hi Bob;

    Thank you! He was influenced by several people. The name George Storrs stands out as another. But keep in mind it was a time when nuggets of truth were becoming open and those who were able to grasp them, were taking hold.

    A good way to look at it is found right at Pentecost when all Jerusalem was filled with people who had studied the the then known scriptures. They had a great deal of truth, compared to most people who were living on the earth at that time, who were in total darkness.

    How else could about 3,000 get baptized that quick? Do you know how long it takes a person coming out of total darkness to get baptised today? A long time. Why?

    Going back to those who had the scriptures at Jerusalem. People trying to live by the Law to the best of their ability. They new God and his righteous standards and tried to live by them. Now with the information about the one who had just died for them they could say, I believe in those verses that taught about him coming and want to get baptised.

    Today when one in total darkness gets a nugget of truth it is just a start, and many more need to be learned so they can bring their lives in harmony with the Bible. That is why it takes time. Lots of time.

    Of coarse sometimes as fast as they get a nugget Satan takes it right away and they stay in dense darkness.

    Then one starts to grow but the friends and relatives put some tribulation on them and they give up the nuggets of truth they had aquired. And they remain in dense darkness.

    Then you have the ones who got the nuggets and get baptised. But Satan scrambles their thinking in many ways and they cash in the nuggets and go back to dense darkness.

    But the good news is most who got the nuggets and get baptised remain loyal worshippers of God.

    I have more info on Michael I would like to share if you are interested.


  • Hank

    1879 has brother Russell coming out of the dark ages from about 5 or ten years earlier. Did he blast from total darkness to total understanding? Anyone who say yes is wrong. Did Saul later paul have instant knowledge of everything? No. Did that eloquent speaker Apolos? No, he had his understanding made more clear by Aquila and Priscilla. And keep in mind brother Russell when seeing something more clear made mention of it. And when he was not sure he said the following,”In this text we may not be sure whether or not the Great Company is included. From one standpoint it looks as though they were; from another, as though they may not be. We do well not to settle it too definitly in our minds, but wait to see what the Lord’s intention is. R5377:c1,p8; c2,p2,3.”

    A couple of other things for you to think on. Daniel was blessed and gave off some tremendous prophecies. But note is,”And I heard but I understood not.” And shortly after those words he was told,”for thou shall rest, and shall stand in thy lot, at the end of the days.” DAN 12:8,13.

    He was assured he would sleep in death and be brought back to life. Would not anyone right now if told by God, or his son, or a good angel not be comfortrd when about 100 years old you got that message?

    Another example is Abraham. How many questions did he ask God? Will you destroy the city with ten righteous men in it? If Abraham didn’t know everything, why would anyone else?

    Also, what does Is 9:6 say? “For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.” When will this be that he is given another group of names? Well it has to be after Satan and those who follow him are destroyed at the end of the thousand year reign in bringing mankind to perfection. Why? Because there will be perfect humans living who fail and have to be removed. So even thought the earth is filled with perfect people it can only mean when the Devil and those who follow him are removed. Then those living can call him a Everlasting Father. For everyone who gets that everlasting life did so through him buying mankind back with one perfect body put us into sin and death, and one perfect body sacrificed making life possible for those who want it.

    I hope this can help you on your search for truth.


    • Bob

      Hi Hank, welcome to the discussion. You’re correct that as people come to a better understanding of the scriptures their perspective and beliefs change, it has definitely happen to me. Don’t forget that Br. Russell was a product of the Adventist Movement of the early 1800’s. Most of his ideas and doctrines were based on the teachings of Jonah Wendell and NH Barbour among others. Barbour was responsible for convincing him about the 1874 date. So Br. Russell may have changed his mind do to outside influences. My point in bringing up the Watchtower quote was that in this occasion Br. Russell may have been correct following his first instincts. I don’t know why or when he changed his beliefs regarding Michael and Jesus. This web site presents a thorough history of the BS, I found it interesting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_Student_movement

      • Peter K. (admin)

        Bob – In Brother Russell’s early years, for five years he and a group of Allegheny brethren reviewed together all the basic doctrines and prophecies. They looked up every scripture they could find looking to harmonize the Bible topically. They examined every point of view and in good conscience came to the conclusion they felt were taught in scriptures. Bible Students provide much information on the historical influences from the Reformation, where some many students of the Bible contributed to what Brother Russell and these early Bible Students learned.

  • doug

    please correct me if i am wrong The dawn students used a pyramid for some explanation please let me know

    • Jacqueline

      Hi Doug, a discussion of the pyramid as Br. Russell saw it is found here on the site. Under science and Archeology. Look to the left, it is the 9th set of articles from the bottom. Click on that for a discussion of the pyramid.

    • Peter K. (admin)

      Doug – VOL. XVII. MAY 15, 1896. No. 10.Watchtower (Reprint 1982 : page 116.) “Jesus was the stone of which the Psalmist prophesied, saying, “The stone which the builders refused is become the headstone of the corner” (Psa. 118:22), the building of God being referred to as a pyramid, of which the topstone is the chief corner stone. (See also Zech. 4:7.) “

      Zech 4:7 (ASV) “…he shall bring forth the top stone with shoutings of Grace, grace, unto it.

      1 Peter 2:5-6 (NKJV), “ 5 you also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6 Therefore it is also contained in the Scripture, “Behold, I lay in Zion A chief cornerstone, elect, precious, And he who believes on Him will by no means be put to shame.” (Concordant translation says “capstone.”)

      Notice how the “living stones” (bride of Christ) are modeled after their top stone Christ. The shape of a pyramid is the exact same shape as its top stone. Hence we (the stones of the building) are built up (as a unified body) in the likeness of our Master, Jesus Christ, our top stone.

      In the Chart of the Ages, you will notice little pyramids depicting individuals and classes of people.

      • K

        Peter K., what building structure do you think Jesus’ followers would have come to their mind they heard the words “chief corner stone”, a pyramid or a common shaped building of the land of Israel?

        • Peter K. (admin)

          K – I think you are probably asking a rhetorical question. Perhaps you are right and Jesus was just talking about a normal building structure. That is how we use the word “corner stone” today in the English language. However, keep in mind that Egypt is next door to Israel, so they would have been very familiar with the pyramids.

          One reason why we tend to have a natural aversion to pyramids is because in the 1960s, Satan brought in this New Age movement, which ties to the occult. Pyramid Power was one of the strange ideas promoted. So, in our culture today, some of us associate pyramids with the idea of the occult. There are also the ancient connections of the pyramids with their corrupted religion.

          Psalms 147:4 (NASV) says of God that, “He counts the number of the stars; He gives names to all of them.” So God named the stars and I think some believe that the constellations tell the Gospel story. However, Satan corrupted the stars with Astrology.

          There is some evidence suggesting that originally Noah, Shem and Ham had a part in the origins of these Egyptian building projects. (I will post an article on this in the next few days). Yet later generations corrupted this information and built false religious concepts promoted by Nimrod and his mother in connection with the Tower of Babel and experiences after that. (see book “Two Babylons”and Edgar article on “Mythology and the Bible”).

          Luke 20:17 (Young s Literal Translation) “A stone that the builders rejected–this became head of a corner?” The word “head” seems to be the accurate translation of the Greek, as in the head of a person’s body, which is the top. So this and the earlier evidence suggested make me think Jesus was talking about a pyramid structure. Hence, the body members as a whole are in the shame likeness (shape) as their head. However, if I am wrong and these scriptures are talking about a normal building structure, either way, we can get the same lesson.

  • doug

    Michel was in the beginning with God and he became God’s word Jesus

    • Anonymous

      Jesus created Michael as well as all other angels. Heb. 1

      • Peter K. (admin)

        Anonymous – Yes Jesus created the other Angels, however he himself was Michael the Archangel.

        Greek and Hebrew words for angel can have the broad meaning of a MESSENGER. The 7 angels/messengers to the 7 churches are stars (Rev 1:20), just like the 12 stars/Apostles (Rev 12:1), showing that angels/stars can be men. As a matter of fact, Jesus is called an angel/ messenger in Revelation 20:1-2 where he is described as binding Satan. Yes, Jesus is the LOGOS (the Word of God), yes God’s spokesperson, yes God’s Chief messenger. LOGOS = GOD’S WORD = GOD’S SPOKESPERSON = GOD’S MESSENGER

        So Jesus can be called a messenger, however that does not mean he has to be equal to the other messengers (angels). Maybe these examples would help. Einstein and I am both human, yet I am nowhere near his mental equal. Goliath and Samson are both human, yet I am nowhere near their equal in size or strength. Is Jesus the highest order of messenger, like Cherubim or Seraphim or even higher? I would think so. However, I cannot precisely explain it as I do not find an exact answer in the scriptures. Certainly, next to Jehovah, there was no one Jesus equal. We might suggest He was the messenger equivalent of Einstein, Goliath and Samson combined. Yet just as I share these men’s human nature, Jesus shared the angel’s spirit nature. In His pre-human existence, Jesus did not have the Divine Nature.

        We both referred to Heb 1:4, “…having become as much better than the angels as he has inherited a more excellent name than they.” If He BECAME better than the angels, than doesn’t that mean that He was NOT better than the angels before He BECAME better than them? When did Jesus become “better than the angels?”

        Eph 1:20-21 (NKJV), “20 which He worked in Christ when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, 21 far above all principality and power and might and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in that which is to come.”

        So Jesus became better than the angels when He ascended to heaven.

        Notice below the Strong’s #’s <1096> (5637) for “having become.”

        Heb 1:4 having become <1096> (5637) so much better than the angels, as He has by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.

        See how the same words are used later in Hebrews.

        Heb 6:20 where the forerunner has entered for us, even Jesus, having become <1096> (5637) High Priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.

        Heb 7:26 For such a High Priest was fitting for us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and has become <1096> (5637) higher than the heavens;

        So according to Hebrews 1:4, Jesus became greater than the angels when he ascended to heaven prior to Pentecost and NOT BEFORE then. In His pre-human existence Jesus was a spirit being like the angels, not a divine being.

        The honest and sincere student of scripture will want to carefully examine the evidence.

        • Bob

          The idea that Michael the Archangel is Jesus was fostered by the early Protestant fathers. The Adventist movement of the mid 1800s also propagated this idea and C.T. Russell adopted it and publicized it in his teachings. The logic is that the Archangel is named Michael and in Scripture is shown as doing what also applies to Christ even from the beginning, so therefore he must be Christ preincarnate. The name Michael means “Who is Like God” so since Jesus is like God, Michael must be Jesus. That’s the same argument that Trinitarians use when they refer to the name Immanuel in Isa 7:14 and in Mat 1:23. Since Immanuel means “God is with us”, therefore Jesus must be God since Jesus was with us on Earth. A very weak argument to say the least especially since the name Micah also means “Who is Like God”, but no one proposes that the prophet Micah is Jesus. In Jewish history Michael was the advocate of the Jews and became so prevalent that in spite of the rabbinical prohibition against appealing to angels as intermediaries between God and his people, Michael came to occupy a certain place in the Jewish liturgy. One of the reasons the book of Hebrews was written, was to show the Jewish converts to Christianity that Jesus was far greater than ANY angels or messengers. Notice Heb. 1 verse 7 to 12, in these verses the author of Hebrews clearly makes a distinction between messengers (angels) and Jesus. While the angels are spirits Jesus is referred to as a God, the same reference John made about Jesus in John 1:1. Hebrews quotes Psalm 45:6-7, the same prophecy the messenger Gabriel tells Mary when announcing Jesus’ birth. Notice also vs. 10 – 12, of Heb. 1, there the author quotes Psalm 102: 25-27, the word Lord in those verses is not capitalized and so it doesn’t refer to Jehovah but instead to Jesus. John 1: 3 confirms this regarding Jesus being the direct creator of all things. The author also reiterates the thought in Psalm 102: 27 in chapter 13 of his letter to the Hebrews verse 8. Verses 13 and 14 are worth noticing also, “To which of the angels (messengers) did God EVER say, “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet”? 14 Are not ALL angels (messengers) ministering spirits sent to SERVE those who will inherit salvation?” The book of Jude also makes reference to Michael the Archangel in verse 9. There Jude paraphrases an incident in a text that has been lost (some scholars believe it to be the Testament of Moses) about Satan and Michael quarrelling over the body of Moses. Michael says to the Devil ““The Lord rebuke you!” Jesus never had a problem rebuking Satan while on Earth, furthermore if Michael is Jesus, then who is the Lord that is to rebuke the Devil? Notice verse 4 Jude refers to Jesus as Lord. Rev 20: 1-2 refers to a messenger coming down from heaven and incarcerating Satan. This messenger is believed by the BS and JW’s to be Jesus since Jesus would defeat Satan according to the prophecy in Genesis. I fail to see the logic behind this thinking. Mat. 28:18 Jesus tells his disciples that ““All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.” Therefore he has command of ALL messengers or angels. The same analogy can be made when Osama bin Laden was killed. President Obama is credited with killing bin Laden, yet he never left Washington D.C. But as Commander in Chief it was his orders that the soldiers followed. Paul speaks of Jesus coming down from heaven with the voice of the archangel in 1Thes 4:16 (NIV). Most BS and JW’s point to that scripture and say if Jesus has the voice of the archangel then therefore he must be Michael. I doubt very much if that’s what Paul meant to say. If coming down “with the voice of the archangel” makes Jesus Michael; then is coming “with the trump of God” make him God also? Is Paul here describing Jesus or the loud command that Jesus makes when descending? We have a similar saying that often describes women singers. The saying is, “She has the voice of an angel”. Would anyone listening think that the person referred to is actually an angel? Or is that a description of what her singing may sound like. Similarly, Jesus when he returns with all his messengers with him will have a commanding voice, 30 “Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory. 31 And he will send his angels (messengers) with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.” Mat 24. Interestingly,in 1Thes 4:16, the definite article, “THE archangel”, is absent in the original Greek and in English translations (such as the English Standard Version of 2001, which has: “the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of AN archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God” http://www.esvbible.org/1+Thessalonians+4%3A16/). The Diaglott also seems to support this as the verse there reads, “Because himself the lord with a command, with a voice of A chief messenger, and with a trumpet of God will come down from heaven, and the dead ones in Anointed will be raised first;”
          The bretheren that advocate the idea that Jesus and Michael are the same don’t have any scriptures that clearly state this hypothesis. Instead they point to a scripture and say if this is true then that must also be true. This is an assumption that I am not prepared to make. I haven’t been convinced of any scriptural evidence where Michael and Jesus are the same person.

          • Peter K. (admin)

            Bob – You said, “The name Michael means “Who is Like God” so since Jesus is like God, Michael must be Jesus. That’s the same argument that Trinitarians use when they refer to the name Immanuel in Isa 7:14 and in Mat 1:23.”

            I simply said, “who else is like God but Jesus himself?” Right? How is that Trinitarian logic? I am just using scripture to interpret scripture. It is like in the Parable of the Rich man and Lazarus. Lazarus means “whom god has helped.” That doesn’t mean Lazarus is God. It is a clue to help us interpret who Lazarus represents. He represents the Gentile Christians, “whom God has helped.” The Rich man is the Jewish nation.

            Of course the Trinitarian argument makes no sense. Mt 1:23 “Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which is translated, “God with us.” Jesus is the Logos, God’s Word or representative. So God was on earth so to speak through his representative Jesus. Which is why he could say, he who has seen me has seen the Father. It is because Jesus was God’s representative on earth. The word Jehovah is sometime found in the names of people and cities, so if followed through, the Trinitarian logic would make people and cities to be God.

            I will respond to your other points later as I am off to work now.

            Let me close for now with this. Let us assume your are correct and that Jesus is not Michael. Still, at the Time of the End when Michael stands up the following will be in process:
            * Knowledge increased (technology, science, etc)
            * Travel increased (cars, planes, etc.)
            * Great Time of Trouble (trouble impacting world wide – i.e. WWI & WW@, economy, Terrorism, etc.)
            * Israel Delivered (now restored to land and a nation)
            * Book of Daniel unsealed (volume 3 of studies in the scriptures)

            So then, do you at least agree that Michael, whoever he is has already stood up (Dan 12:1) at this time of the end in which we are now living?

            • Bob

              My point was that using the meaning of the name to show that Jesus is Michael is not good reasoning. Using the name Immanuel and the Trinitarian logic behind it shows the validity of my rationalization. Lazarus was a parable Jesus used to teach his disciples so I would not consider it an applicable example. A parable by definition “is a short simple story intended to illustrate a moral or religious lesson”. I also mentioned that the name Micah means “Who is like God” to further emphasize my point.

              • Peter K. (admin)

                Bob – The meaning of names in the Bible often has significance. Hence, the meaning of the Name Michael would be a clue to who he is. Here are some other examples.

                Ge 17:5 (NKJV) says, “No longer shall your name be called Abram, but your name shall be Abraham; for I have made you a father of many nations.” ABRAHAM אַבְרָהָם This name may be viewed either as meaning “father of many” in Hebrew or else as a contraction of ABRAM (1) and הָמוֹן (hamon) “many, multitude”.

                Ge 17:19 “Then God said: “No, Sarah your wife shall bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac” (The name Isaac means ‘he laughs’) Ge 21:6 “And Sarah said, ‘God has made me laugh, and all who hear will laugh with me.'”

                EDOM אֱדוֹם Means “red” in Hebrew. The name Edom means “red” in Hebrew, and was given to Esau, the eldest son of the Hebrew patriarch Isaac, once he ate the “red pottage”, which the Bible used in irony at the fact he was born “red all over”.

                • Bob

                  I agree that sometimes names have meanings especially if it is changed by God for a specific reason. By your reasoning though, the the prophet Micah would also be Jesus. And can you explain then Rev 12:7?

                  • Peter K. (admin)

                    Bob – I never said that the meaning of a name always identifies something about the person. However, sometimes this is the case. Another example is Solomon, who was named by God . His name means “peace.” And so as David was a king of war, Solomon was a king of peace. So when the name comes from God, as in the case of Abraham, Solomon or Michael, there would be more expectation that the meaning of the name is for a purpose.

                    Revelation 12 is a complex explanation. Our Revelation books in the right panel of this website under “electronic books” provide explanations. Bro. Russell explained Revelation 12 here: http://www.htdb.net/1881/r304.htm

                    Here the woman fleeing into the Wilderness is the true church fleeing from papal persecution during the 1260 years (539=1799 A.D.) This was pictured in Elijah fleeing from Jezebel into the wilderness. The manchild is the corrupting influences of antichrist growing among the true church, which turns into Michael, the counterfeit of Jesus or the Papal authority. This counterfeit concept is found in 2 Thess 2 (NKJV)

                    3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; [the counterfeit Michael / the Papacy]
                    4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
                    7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: [manchild growing] only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way [Dragan/Civil Rome in the way]

    • Peter K. (admin)

      Doug – The name Michael mean “who is as God.” Who else is as God but Jesus Himself. In Jesus’pre-human existence, he was called Michael the Arch-Angel. He only received the name Jesus, at the time he born of Mary.

      • Bob

        Peter, on the topic of names, why don’t we let Br. Russell have the final word. You can find this quote in the 1879 November Watchtower page 4, read the whole article here http://www.mostholyfaith.com under reprints.

        “Jesus, means Saviour, and we are carried forward from the mere word to the Exalted Official Position, on account of which He can “save to the uttermost all who come unto God by Him.” His position is contrasted with that of men and angels, as He is Lord of both, having “all power in heaven and earth.” Hence it is said, “Let all the angels of God worship him;” [that must include Michael, the chief angel, hence Michael is not the Son of God] and the reason is, because He has “by inheritance obtained a more excellent Name than they.” Michael or Gabriel are perhaps grander names than Jesus, though Jesus is grand in its very simplicity, but the official character of the Son of God as Saviour and King is the inheritance from His Father, which is far superior to theirs, for it pleased the Father that in Him all fullness should dwell. He has given Him a Name which is above every name, that at the Name of Jesus every knee should bow both in heaven and earth. And there is “none other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved.””

        • Peter K. (admin)

          Bob – Thanks for keeping me on my toes. I respect your conviction of your beliefs. If you want Br. Russell to have the final word on this discussion, then you will accept his view that Jesus is Michael the Archangel.

          Yes, all power was given to Jesus and He was exalted above all the other angels. This does not say that Jesus relinquishes His role as God’s chief messenger. I think the difficulty you have is with a narrow view of the Greek and Hebrew words translated angel, which means messenger. We have already seen in Revelation 20, that Jesus is described as an angel (messenger) descending from heaven to bind Satan. How than can you say that Jesus cannot be called an angel/messenger?

          Heb 1:4 says, “…having become as much better than the angels as he has inherited a more excellent name than they.” If He BECAME better than the angels, than doesn’t that mean that He was NOT better than the angels before He BECAME better than them? When did Jesus become “better than the angels?”

          Eph 1:20-21 (NKJV), “20 which He worked in Christ when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, 21 far above all principality and power and might and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in that which is to come.”

          So Jesus became better than the angels when He ascended to heaven.

          Notice below the Strong’s #’s (5637) for “having become.”

          Heb 1:4 having become (5637) so much better than the angels, as He has by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.

          See how the same words are used later in Hebrews.

          Heb 6:20 where the forerunner has entered for us, even Jesus, having become (5637) High Priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.

          Heb 7:26 For such a High Priest was fitting for us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and has become (5637) higher than the heavens;

          So according to Hebrews 1:4, Jesus became greater than the angels when he ascended to heaven prior to Pentecost and NOT BEFORE then. In His pre-human existence Jesus was a spirit being like the angels, not a divine being.

          • Bob

            I would have been glad to accept Br Russell’s view on the topic of Jesus = Michael before he changed it. He should have stayed with his first instincts, they are usually correct. I don’t have any difficulty with equating angels and messengers. As you notice in my first post I used the terms interchangeably. As far as Rev 20, I also gave my reasoning behind that scripture and don’t see any reason to change. If the angel or messenger was Jesus, why didn’t John say so? He describes Jesus throughout Revelation and mentions Michael in chapter 12, why does he say in chapter 20 that it was an anonymous messenger? I would venture to say that it’s because it was not Jesus, but a messenger/angel empowered and acting on behalf of Jesus. You’re correct that Heb. 1:4 states that Jesus “became” greater than the angels. However, I believe the author explains himself in Chapter 2:9, Jesus was made lower than angels for a little while. So yes, after his resurrection he “became so much greater” than angels/messengers. That is not to say he wasn’t before. Paul echoes this sentiment in Col 1:15-17 and in Eph 1:3-6. Heb. 1:3 agrees with Paul, “The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word.” These scriptures indicate that Jesus was already greater than the messengers before he came to Earth. Heb. 1:6 seems to support this argument also; the author states that God commanded ALL his messengers to worship Jesus at his birth. If Jesus was not greater than the angels until after Pentecost as you say, then we have messengers/angels worshiping another messenger/angel. I also bring your attention to John 3:16, Jesus is described as God’s “only begotten Son” look up Strong’s number 3439 and then compare Heb. 1:5. Heb. 1: 7-13, the author makes a clear distinction between Jesus and angels/messengers. Verse 7 “In speaking of the angels he says…” verse 8 “BUT about the Son he says…” notice a distinct difference between the two personalities. Heb. 1:14 asks a question, “Are not all angels ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation?” I don’t believe this would apply to Jesus. In Jude 9 Michael does not rebuke the devil but leaves that to the Lord. As such, he did the work of angels as outlined in 2 Peter 2:11, as he did not bring slanderous accusations against the devil. Jesus never had a problem rebuking the devil or any demon while on Earth; however, Jude makes a clear distinction between the two of them referring to Jesus as the Lord in verses 1 & 4. The demons also recognized the distinction in several instances where they refer to Jesus as the Son of God (Mat. 8:28-29; Luke 4:33-34).
            Peter, as steel sharpens steel, I offer these arguments, not to change your mind or anyone else’s, but simply to present a different point of view, the “other side of the coin” if you will. I hope you accept my observations in that spirit.

            • Jacqueline

              Bob, I know you are dialoging with Br. Peter but I have eleven people here with me and others also are watching the site and it is indeed a joy to see this allowance of digging and expressing how you view it. Also we get a front seat as Br. Peter comes back with expressions. This is a much needed discussion from former witnesses point of view. To have this wealth of thoughts on this POWERFUL MICHAEL is important to thoughts on salvation.
              So carry on we are listening to all of you and it is here for future look ups. May the LORD, Jehovah bless, Jacqueline

            • Peter K. (admin)

              Bob – Thanks for your response. Let’s talk about it.

              You asked that since Revelation mentions Jesus throughout, why wouldn’t He be identified as the angel in Rev 20? ?” As you know Bob, Revelation is a book of symbols. Jesus only appears under the name Jesus in in the first introductory verses and final few windup verses of Revelation, where the language is more straightforward and less symbolic. Hence, in any other appearances of Jesus in Revelation, He is not called Jesus. If the name “Jesus” must be attached to the character referred to, we would have to conclude that Jesus never makes appearances throughout Revelation. Yet we do see Jesus in Rev 14:14 and elsewhere being described in varied symbolic language.

              In Revelation, angels/messengers are often mentioned with clues to help us to interpret who they represent. Jesus may also be described as an angel in Revelation in at least two other verses in addition to Rev 20:1.

              After these things I saw another angel coming down from heaven, having great authority, and the earth was illuminated with his glory.” (Re 18:1 NKJV – compare Psa 94:4; Matt 28:18)

              I saw still another mighty angel coming down from heaven, clothed with a cloud. And a rainbow was on his head, his face was like the sun, and his feet like pillars of fire.” (Re 10:1 NKJV – compare Rev 1:15-16)

              You say that you don’t believe the Rev 20 angel that binds Satan is Jesus. Well again, Revelation is very symbolic and I can understand how many of us can have differences of opinion. Yet, let me ask? Is there any spirit being powerful enough to bind Satan other than Jesus? I do think the Rev 20 angel is Jesus.

              Gen 3:14-15 says, “So the LORD God said to the serpent: … I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her Seed; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise His heel.” (NKJ)

              Jesus is the “seed of the woman” who crushes the serpent’s head.” Hebrews 2:14 (RVIC) says, “… that through death he (Jesus) might bring to nought the one having the power of death, that is, the devil;” So it is Jesus who crushes and binds Satan, not another spirit being.

              I agree with you that Jesus was already greater than the other angels in rank, authority and power during his pre-human existence. However, let’s read Ephesians again.

              Eph 1:20-21 (NKJV), “20 which He worked in Christ when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, 21 far above all principality and power and might and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in that which is to come.”

              At his resurrection, Jesus was raised even higher than before, to God’s right hand. Before he was at the top of all the other angels, at His resurrection, he was raised above the angels and to be at God’s right hand.

              You said, “…after his resurrection he “became so much greater” than angels/messengers. That is not to say he wasn’t before.”

              Then what was the point of saying Jesus was made greater than the angels, if He was already greater before? I think that in His pre-human existence, Jesus was the greatest angel/messenger. Someone might say that Solomon was the wisest man, that Samson was the strongest man and that Einstein was the smartest man, however that would not make them greater than men. They were human. Jesus was the greatest of all God’s creation. Yet at His resurrection, Jesus became even greater by receiving the very Divine Nature of God, which he did not have previously.

              Heb 1:3 says “who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high

              Jesus became the “brightness of His [God’s] glory” at His resurrection and ascension to God’s right hand, not in this pre-human existence. The word “express image” (Strong’s 5481) only appears once in the Bible and means an exact copy, like a figure stamped, a precise reproduction in every respect.

              Compare this: “who alone (Jesus, God is the exception 1 Cor 15:27) has immortality, dwelling in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see (Jesus cannot be seen in His Divine Immortal Nature, thus Paul was blinded), to whom be honor and everlasting power. Amen.” (1Ti 6:16 NKJV)

              Jesus changed natures when he came to earth, from an angelic spirit being to a perfect man. Again at His resurrection, Jesus changed natures from a perfect man to a Divine being, sharing the same nature at God Himself, which Jesus did not previously have.

              More later…

              • Bob

                I’ll hold my comments untill you can finish yours

                • Peter K. (admin)


                  Continuing where I left off. You said, “Heb. 1:6 seems to support this argument also; the author states that God commanded ALL his messengers to worship Jesus at his birth. If Jesus was not greater than the angels until after Pentecost as you say, then we have messengers/angels worshiping another messenger/angel.”

                  Heb 2:9 (AV) says, “But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death…” So actually what we have here are the angels worshiping Jesus as a perfect human, who at that time was lower than the angels in respect to His nature. Jesus was always higher ranking than any of the other messengers, yet he obtained a higher nature, the Divine Nature, at His resurrection and a much higher office at His ascension. (Eph 1:21)

                  You contrasted how Jesus is God’s only begotten Son with Hebrews 1 where Jesus is shown to be greater than the angels. Heb 1:4 (NKJV) says, “ having become so much better than the angels, as He has by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.” So as we pointed out before, Jesus became greater than the angels at His ascension.

                  You pointed out that this verse could not apply to Jesus. Heb 1:14 (Rotherham), “14 Are they not, all, spirits, doing public service,–for ministry, sent forth, for the sake of them who are about to inherit salvation?”

                  Those being about to inherit salvation,’ is the more correct rendering. We see here a reference to the ‘fellows’ of verse 9, who are to share the inheritance and office of the Son, and who are so important in that plan that the holy angels are sent forth to minister, to serve them. So you are correct. This does not apply to Jesus as the time frame is after Pentecost when the angels are ministering to those “about to inherit salvation,” the anointed and spirit begotten prospective bride of Christ.

                  In Jude 9 you noted how Michael would not rebuke the devil.” Your point being that Michael did not rebuke the devil, yet Jesus had no problem rebuking the devil.

                  Jude 8-9 (NKJV) says, “… these … reject authority, and speak evil of dignitaries. Yet Michael the archangel, in contending with the devil, when he disputed about the body of Moses, dared not bring against him a reviling accusation, but said, “The Lord rebuke you!””

                  Jude contrasts how the wicked do not respect authority. Jesus recognized Satan as the present “prince of this world” (John 14:30). As Christians we are to be in subjection to the authority of these earthly governments under Satan’s dominion (Romans 13:1-7) where it does not conflict with Christian conscience. Just as Michael would not bring an accusation against the devil (Satan is the accuser), so Jesus in essences did the same, and like Michael, said to Satan in the desert the Lord rebuke you by quoting scriptures in response to each of Satan’s temptations. By quoting scripture, it was God rebuking Satan, through the scriptures that Jesus quoted, not Jesus himself. However, as you said, Jesus had no problem rebuking the devils that possessed people as these devils were mischief makers, not authorities.

                  In your comments, you use the argument that Jesus is the Son of God to contrast him as distinct from the angels. Yet the angels are called sons of God (Gen 6:2,4; Job 1:6, 2:1 and 38:7). Adam as a human was called a son of God (Luke 3:38). As prospective members of the body of Christ, humans are called “sons of God” (Romans 8:14, 19).

                  You are of course welcome to present another point of view here. We are still brothers in Christ. I here have shared my view.

                  • Bob

                    I gave my logic to Rev 20 in my first post. As you pointed out, Mt. 28: 18 Jesus says he was given all authority over heaven and earth. Therefore, he is credited with the destruction of Satan. However, President Truman was credited with dropping the A-bomb on Japan and President Obama with the killing of Osama bin Laden but neither one did it personally, they empowered their subordinates to carry out the mission for them. In the same manner, Jesus empowers an anonymous angel to carry out his will. Remember also, that at this time Satan is only bound for a thousand years and let loose again after the little season, he is not destroyed. Not until the little season is over is Satan destroyed, vs. 10. Therefore, the angel of Rev. 20:1 does not have to be Jesus since the prophecy of Gen. 3 is not being fulfilled at this time. Note also vs. 4 of chapter 20; “I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge.” Notice how power and authority is given to others. You are correct that in Rev. symbols are given with clues to show us who they may represent. The examples you give have descriptions of the messengers and I can understand how some may think that Jesus is being described. However, the angel in Rev 20 is not described in any manner, so I can’t see adding to what is written and making him out to be Jesus. I’m glad we both agree that Jesus was greater than other messengers before his human existence. My logic in bringing up John 3:16 was to show that Jesus is the “only begotten Son of God.” While other beings are also called sons of God, Heb. 1:5 makes a distinction between Jesus and the other sons of God. Heb. 1:7-13 continues in the same thought. Although Michael is an Archangel, he would still fall under the classification that the author of Hebrews makes between Jesus and angels, which would seem to me, proof that Michael and Jesus are separate beings. The same reasoning applies to the book of Jude verse 9. Jesus is described as Lord in verses 1 and 4. Jude uses the same word in verse 9 when Michael tells Satan, “The Lord (#2962) rebuke you!” So I have to ask if Jesus and Michael are the same person, who then is the Lord that rebukes the devil? Compare that scripture with Peter 2:11, where Michael follows how Peter states the angels act, they, “do not heap abuse on such (celestial) beings when bringing judgment on them from the Lord.” The word Lord in 2 Peter is the same one that Jude uses to describe Jesus. So again, these scriptures seem to differentiate between Jesus and Michael. I appreciate your point of view on this subject. I simply feel that there are too many unanswered question to definitively state that Michael the Archangel is Jesus preincarnate.

                    • Jacqueline

                      Bob, I want to say a little something here on Gen.3:15. I have never accepted the fact that this head bruising is a death keel. Therefore Christ fits the description of the angel of the abyss as he only binds him so he is bruised not killed. Witnesses and many others add to the scripture to say a bruising is death because it is on the head.
                      However the Bible does not say that. Rather it says he comes back out and God, Jehovah, has all things turned over to him. I have always surmised without rocking any boats that Jehovah is the one that will deal the Death blow to Satan, because at that time Jesus has bowed before him and handed the perfected mankind back to the father so he may be all things to all.(Rev. 20:7-10)Second death is permanent, only from Jehovah.
                      So that’s why I accept that the next in power will bind him, Jesus as part of his kingly duty.
                      Proof text: Revelation.1:1 Today’s English version: “This book is about Jesus Christ revealed” Revised Standard, Rev.1:1 “The revelation of Jesus Christ.”
                      To me the revealing is about what Jesus will be doing in this book. It ties back to Gen.3:15 a bruising done by the binding of Satan not his death.
                      Rev:20:1 John says he saw an Angel (remember Jesus gave the revelation to another angel after God gave it to him.) From John’s standpoint this is an Angel armed with a message of action for the devil. I don’t think it is necessary for him to try to identify what he saw if the angel didn’t say Jesus but it could be Jesus. After all this is Kingly duties.
                      !John 3:8 says one of the reasons that the Son of God appeared was to break up the works of the devil. So he is about us and the Bible is about Jesus as the Christ or Savior so I don’t think other angels need to be pointed out as an acception in the binding of Satan.
                      My thought pattern may not be complete but I saw the opportunity to say what I have secretly never accepted that Jesus deals the death blow to Satan.
                      Now I wait for the direct hit on this reasoning.

                    • Peter K. (admin)

                      Bob – You have really earned my respect. Sometimes I try to keep concepts as simple as possible so as not to confuse some of the less advanced readers, however you see details on a deeper level. So I will get more technical with you. You brought up some good points.

                      Let’s talk about the concept of empowering a sub-ordinate to carry out a mission. Jehovah/Yahweh created the world by empowering His sub-ordinate, Jesus to do it. Perhaps even Jesus enlisted the support of the angelic realm in this process; however this is an area of speculation since I am not aware of scriptural evidence to support it. I do get your point. Yes in the case of Jesus, we know He created the universe and the world since the Bible says as much (scriptures previously reference).

                      Daniel 10:13 (Young’s Literal Translation) says, “And the head of the kingdom of Persia is standing over-against me twenty and one days, and lo, Michael, first of the chief heads, hath come in to help me.” Satan is called the “prince of this world” (John 16:11) by Jesus. Persia, being the ruling kingdom of the world at that time, its head would have been Satan. Satan was too powerful for Gabriel, who finally received help from Michael (I think Jesus in His pre-human existence). Other than Michael, what angel would be more powerful than Gabriel? If Gabriel could not subdue Satan (the prince of Persia) by himself, then that leaves only Michael. Whether or not at that time Michael could have subdued Satan on His own, later, in His glorified condition, Jesus would have no problem subduing Satan.

                      Malachi 2:17 (NKJV) says “1 ¶ “Behold, I send My messenger , And he will prepare the way before Me. And the Lord, whom you seek, Will suddenly come to His temple, Even the Messenger of the covenant, In whom you delight. Behold, He is coming,” Says the LORD of hosts.”

                      Here John the Baptist is the angel/messenger who prepares the way for Jesus, who in turn is described as the angel/messenger of the (New) covenant. So here Jesus is described as an angel. Even though since His ascension, Jesus is no longer an angel in the narrow sense that we think of the angelic realm, He is still angel in the broader sense that we understand the word “messenger” to signify that Jesus is still God’s chief messenger (Logos/Word).

                      I will continue later as I find time.

                    • Peter K. (admin)

                      Bob – continuing on from where I left off yesterday…

                      Gen 3:15 (Rotherham) says, “And, enmity, will I put between thee, and the woman, and between thy seed, and her seed,–He, shall crush thy head, But, thou, shalt crush his heel.”

                      Yes, I think the seed of the woman (Christ) crushes Satan’s head. Now crushing someone’s heal will not kill them, however crushing their head will. So I think Christ does destroy Satan. In my opinion, binding Him, is the first step leading up to His destruction. It makes sense to me that since Christ destroys Satan, that He first binds or restrains Him

                      Now in Rev 20:1, notice that the angel that binds Satan has a “key.” . Who in Revelation is the one with the keys?

                      Re 1:18 (AV) – “I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.”

                      Re 3:7 (AV) – “And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write; These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth;”

                      The one with the keys is Jesus and so this angel with the key to the bottomless pit is therefore Jesus.

                      Back to your point about empowering subordinates to carry out a mission. In regard to the binding and destruction of Satan, I think the scriptural evidence is that Jesus’ glorified body members would participate in these processes, not any angels.

                      Romans 16:18 (Rotherham) says, “… the God of peace, will crush Satan under your feet shortly. “ So then, the bride of Christ, as part of the “seed” (Gal 3:29) join with Christ in binding Satan. You referred to Rev 20:4 (AV), which says, “And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them … and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.” So this authority to sit in judgment is given to the bride of Christ, not angels. (1 Cor 6:3).

                      You said, “My logic in bringing up John 3:16 was to show that Jesus is the “only begotten Son of God.” While other beings are also called sons of God, Heb. 1:5 makes a distinction between Jesus and the other sons of God.”

                      However, that distinction between Jesus and the angels is at Jesus’ resurrection, not His creation.

                      Ac 13:33 (AV) says, “God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten (5758) thee .”

                      Jesus had a spirit body was created for Him by God twice:
                      1) At His Original Creation a spirit body was created for Jesus
                      2) When raised from the dead, a new divine glorified body was created for Jesus

                      So this contrast between Jesus and the angels in Hebrews applies to Jesus resurrection from the dead, not before.

                      You said that in “Jude verse 9. Jesus is described as Lord in verses 1 and 4. Jude uses the same word in verse 9 when Michael tells Satan, “The Lord (#2962) rebuke you!” So I have to ask if Jesus and Michael are the same person, who then is the Lord that rebukes the devil?”

                      At that time of Jude 9 (after Moses died), Jesus was not yet Lord, so the word “Lord” in Jude 9 is referring to His Father God.

                      Mr 12:36 (AV) says, “For David himself said by the Holy Ghost, The LORD said to my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool.”

                      Jesus became Lord and sat at God’s right hand after He was raised from the dead. (Hebrews 12:2)

                      Bob you are an excellent student of scriptures. I wish we could be on the same side on this discussion.

  • To illustrate that it is a misleading that religious organizations of all types seek – and not the truth – can be seen in the illustration on this thread of what I suppose is supposed to be an angel – Michael.

    Angels are not flesh and blood creatures and cannot be seen in their natural created state. Yet, religious organizations – claiming they teach the truth – bend the rules and portray angels as men with wings. (Even babies with wings).

    Is such a portrayal “true” or “false?” It is false. Yet, when I was a Jehovah’s Witness and questioned such a thing, I was taught (and taught others) that such “visible” portrayals are “just illustrations.” In hindsight I realize that I given a “brush off” response and I taught others who questioned “brush off” responses. I did not answer them “truthfully.” I actually excused the telling of a lie as the truth.

    I agree that Michael – the Chief Angel – is The Son of God, but NOT Jesus.

    Before being dispatched to the earth Michael – The Son of God – resided in heaven AS Michael. The name Jesus (Yeshua) is not a heavenly name and not one given to this Mighty Archangel. Michael, the angel, was NOT given a “new name.”

    The name Jesus is an earthly name NOT a heavenly one; a name given him by his human parents. As a human, this is one of the names he was known as. He was a son of man.

    At the expiration of his human life, this Son of God return to the place from which he came – heaven – and with his angelic name: Michael.

    The world knew and knows him as “Jesus” and it is by that “name” people will have salvation because it was a “son of man” who gave up his life for us, not an angel. But should we view the Son of God, at present as “a man” named Jesus or as the Archangel who has a name, Michael?

    If one believes that The Son of God returned to the place from which he came, it stands to reason that this Son of God is known as Michael in heaven. Therefore, we should look to Michael as being the one to return (as King over the earth for 1000 years), not Jesus.

    Michael is named as the one named at Rev 12:7-9 battling with the dragon and his angels in heaven and casting them out. It was Michael, not Jesus (as Jesus had not arrived yet) who disputed with the Devil over Moses body. (Jude 9)

    I believe that the only entity “qualified” to preach the Good News of the Kingdom to all of the inhabited earth as a witness to all of the nations is Michael. No human is qualified to preach it and nor has the Good News message been given.

    PROOF: Revelation 14:6 clearly states that “an angel” (one angel) will declare the Good News.

    I believe the world has been totally misled and is not visualizing the Son of God AS HE IS AT PRESENT, the INVISIBLE Archangel who is named Michael.

    Michael is like God especially in that he is a spirit creature, INVISIBLE.

    Our Master “today” is Michael, the Son of God, The Christ, The Word of God, and he resides in heaven. He will be earth’s king in God’s appointed time. NEVER will Michael vacate heaven to literally return to the earth as he is NOT flesh and blood. Michael’s kingdom over the earth for 1000 years will be a rule FROM heaven.

    While much of mankind knows of Jesus, what do they know of the one “who was” before Jesus and “is now.” This archangels name is not Jesus, it is Michael.

    It is Michael [the Christ] who at present intercedes and pleads our case before the Father.

    We need to start addressing our Lord by his heavenly name. The name he had before being sent and the name he is known by all of the heavenly hosts.

    • K

      Jerome, angels are depicted as having wings because when some of God’s servants were given visions that’s how they appeared to them. Why do you think the ark of the covenant had cherubs with WINGS?

    • Dupin

      That is an interesting post Mr. Harris.

      If I might also suggest some things. Yes, when Michael came to earth he was given the name Jesus, but at God’s command (Lk 1:26-33). So this was not an arbitrary act on Mary and Joseph’s part, it was by divine direction. That was because it was God’s will that when he returned to heaven as a newly glorified creature with immortality he was to retain that name, and do so for a reason. Paul tells us that reason:

      “Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” (Php 2:9-11)

      So we see the name of Michael was not resumed, it was discarded for all time. I am aware that probably supports your interpretation of the passage in Revelation (Rev. 12:7-9), I am not studied enough in the Revelation to debate that point. Since Revelation doesn’t cover the Jewish age it is obvious that the pre-human archangel we now know as Jesus was acting in his role and under the name he had when Moses died.

      I hope this give you some food for thought.

      • Peter K. (admin)

        Dupin – Jesus is also called Emanuel(Matthew 1:23) and the Logos (John 1:1). He can have more than one name or title at the same time. So 1 Thess 4:16 is letting us know that Jesus, who descends from heaven with the voice of the ArchAngel is the same Micheal of the Old Testament who was prince of Israel.

Leave a Reply to Anon CJ Cancel reply

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>