St. Michael the Archangel has long occupied a hallowed place in the hearts and minds of Christians worldwide. But who, exactly, is Michael? His very name means “Who is like God?” But no one is like God except God.
Christian theologians have several theories as to the identity of Michael:
Michael is a powerful created being in the service of God, one of three or seven named archangels (Raphael, Gabriel, Uriel, Raguel, Sariel, and Remiel) depending on tradition. This view is held by most Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant Christians (“COPs”).
Michael is another name for Jesus. Before his earthly life, Jesus was an angel known as Michael. When on earth, he was a human being and not an angel. However, after his resurrection, he resumed his position as Michael in the heavenly realm. This view is held by Jehovah’s Witnesses (“JWs”). They don’t believe Jesus is God, but rather God’s first creation.
Michael is a Christophany. He is the pre-incarnate Christ, the begotten Son of the Father, before and after He came to Earth. This view is held by Seventh-Day Adventists (“SDAs”). They maintain that Christ is fully divine and is not a created being.
The difference between the JW and SDA position is simultaneously profound and subtle. It is profound because the divinity (or lack thereof) of Christ is central to Christianity and its heresies. But it is subtle enough that the distinction is virtually always ignored by COP theologians. Anytime they aim to rebut the view that Michael is another name for Jesus Christ, such theologians aim all of their rhetorical firepower at the JW argument and more or less ignore the SDA argument. That’s unfortunate, because having now studied the matter personally, I have come to the conclusion that the SDA view is correct: The Archangel Michael is actually a Christophany of Jesus Christ.
What is a Christophany?
For those of you unfamiliar with the term, a Christophany is an appearance or manifestation of Jesus Christ in the Old Testament prior to his human birth in Bethlehem.
The concept of Christophanies is widespread and relatively uncontroversial. Infogalactic has a lengthy article detailing the many Christophanies that theologians have perceived in the Old Testament. Here are some of them:
The appearance of God "walking in the garden" in the story of Adam and Eve in the Book of Genesis (Genesis 3:8) was regarded by most Church Fathers and medieval commentators as an appearance by the Logos, or pre-existent Christ.
Melchizedek, who appears in Genesis 14:18-20 as a priest of the most high God, is called out by theologian Tremper Longman as an Old Testament Christophany; Melchizedek is Jesus.
The unnamed angel with whom Jacob wrestles in Genesis 32:22-32 is designated a “pre-incarnate appearance of Christ in the form of a man” by theologian Douglas MacMillan.
Both Church fathers such as Origen and later theologians such as Martin Luther believed "the commander of the army of the LORD" who appears to Joshua in Joshua 5:13-15, is the pre-incarnate Christ. This Christophany has particularly strong scriptural support, because “the commander” accepted Joshua's prostrate worship, whereas angels refuse such worship, as seen in Revelation 19:9-10. Additionally, “the commander” declared the ground to be holy; elsewhere in the Bible, only things or places set aside for God or claimed by him are called holy.
Virtually all of the early Church fathers, including heavyweights such as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus of Lyons, and Tertullian, identify the Angel of the Lord as a Christophany of the pre-incarnate Christ. Theologian Susan Garrett explains:
Some [Jews during the time of Jesus and shortly before] understood the Angel of the Lord as a being completely separate from God—a sort of angelic vizier or righthand angel, who served as head of the heavenly host and... as a mediator between God and humans... [Apart] from Christianity there was talk among ancient Jews of God’s word, God’s glory, and so forth in terms highly reminiscent of the angel of the LORD. So, when early Christian authors like Justin Martyr connected Jesus with God’s word and that word, in turn, with the angel of the LORD, they were not inventing from scratch...
This view has continued to be held up unto the present by many theologians. For instance, Louis Goldberg, in Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology, writes:
"The functions of the angel of the Lord in the Old Testament prefigure the reconciling ministry of Jesus. In the New Testament, there is no mention of the angel of the Lord; the Messiah himself is this person.”
Of course, as with all matters Christian, some theologians do disagree and the limitations of our cursory and short-form format prevent a deeper exploration of Christophany as a concept. I am, myself, persuaded to virtual certainty that the appearances of both the Angel of the Lord and the Commander of the Army of the Lord were Christophanies.
If we accept in principal the possibility of Christophany, e.g. that Jesus appears pre-incarnation in the Old Testament, then the path is cleared for us to evaluate whether or not the Archangel Michael is a Christophany.
Let’s dive in to the debate.
Michael in Scripture and Tradition
Michael appears by name five times in Scripture — three times in the Old Testament and twice in the New Testament. The relevant passages are:
Daniel 10:13: "But the prince of the Persian kingdom resisted me twenty-one days. Then Michael, first of the chief heads, came to help me, because I was detained there with the king of Persia."
Daniel 10:21: "But first I will tell you what is written in the Book of Truth. (No one supports me against them except Michael, your prince."
Daniel 12:1: "At that time Michael, the great prince who protects your people, will arise. There will be a time of distress such as has not happened from the beginning of nations until then. But at that time your people—everyone whose name is found written in the book—will be delivered."
Jude 1:9: "But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not himself dare to condemn him for slander but said, 'The Lord rebuke you!'"
Revelation 12:7-9: "Then war broke out in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back. But he was not strong enough, and they lost their place in heaven. The great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him."
Michael is sometimes also asserted to be the Commander of the Army of the Lord who appears in Joshua 5:13-15:
Joshua 5:13: “Now when Joshua was near Jericho, he looked up and saw a man standing in front of him with a drawn sword in his hand. Joshua went up to him and asked, ‘are you for us or for our enemies?’”
Joshua 5:14: “‘Neither,” he replied, “but as commander of the army of the Lord I have now come.” Then Joshua fell facedown to the ground in reverence, and asked him, ‘What message does my Lord[a] have for his servant?’”
Joshua 5:15: “The commander of the Lord’s army replied, ‘Take off your sandals, for the place where you are standing is holy.’ And Joshua did so.”
Michael is highly prominent in Church tradition. According to the Roman Catholic Church, Saint Michael has four main roles or offices:
His first role is the leader of the Army of God and the leader of heaven's forces in their triumph over the powers of hell. He is viewed as the angelic model for the virtues of the spiritual warrior, with the conflict against evil at times viewed as the battle within.
The second and third roles of Michael in Catholic teachings deal with death. In his second role, Michael is the angel of death, carrying the souls of all the deceased to heaven. In this role Michael descends at the hour of death, and gives each soul the chance to redeem itself before passing; thus consternating the devil and his minions. Catholic prayers often refer to this role of Michael.
In his third role, he weighs souls on his perfectly balanced scales. For this reason, Michael is often depicted holding scales.
In his fourth role, Saint Michael, the special patron of the Chosen People in the Old Testament, is also the guardian of the Church. Saint Michael was revered by the military orders of knights during the Middle Ages.
According to the Eastern Orthodox Church, Michael is dubbed the Archistrategos, the “Supreme Commander of the Heavenly Hosts.” Both the Catholics and the Orthodox pray to St. Michael.
In both Orthodox and Catholic liturgical texts and iconography, Michael is often depicted as a military figure or a warrior, reinforcing his role as a heavenly commander. He is typically shown holding a sword or a spear, or sometimes a set of scales, symbolizing his role in the final judgment.
Arguments for Michael as a Christophany of Jesus
Based on the scripture and tradition of Michael, a number of arguments are usually deployed to argue that Michael is another name for the pre-incarnate Jesus.
Michael and Jesus have Similar Titles: Michael is called "the great prince" in Daniel 12:1, and Jesus is referred to as "Prince of Peace" in Isaiah 9:6. These similar titles are evidence that they fulfill similar functions in God’s plan.
Michael and Jesus have Similar Roles as a Defender of God’s People: Michael is portrayed as a defender of God's people in Daniel 10:13, Daniel 12:1, and Revelation 12:7. This has been compared to Jesus' role as the defender and savior of humanity found in John 10-11, Luke 19:10, and Hebrews 7:25.
Michael and Jesus have Similar Authority over Angels: Michael is described as “first of the chief heads” of the angels in Daniel 10:13 and as “the archangel” in Jude 1:9. The word “archangel” is derived from the New Testament Greek arkhangelos "chief angel," from arkh- "chief, first" and angelos “angel.” Michael is clearly, in some sense, “in charge” of the other angels. Similarly, Jesus is depicted as having authority over angels in Matthew 13:41, Matthew 24:31, and 2 Thessalonians 1:7.
Michael and Jesus have Similar Roles in Battling Satan: Michael confronts Satan in Revelations 12:7-9 and in Jude 1:9. Jesus confronts Satan in Matthew 4:1-11, Mark 1:12-13, and Luke 4:1-13. The only other named being in the entire Bible who confronts Satan is God Himself, in Job 1:7-12 and Job 2:1-7. Satan is traditionally deemed to have been the most powerful of God’s angels before his Fall, often with reference to Ezekiel 28:12-19 and Isaiah 14:12-15. If Satan was the most powerful being God ever created, then the only being capable of successfully confronting him would seem to be a being God didn’t create - that is, a member of the Trinity.
Michael and Jesus have Similar Roles in Bringing about the End Times: The appearance of Michael marks the end of times and the rising of the dead in Daniel 11:1-12:2. Daniel 11 describes the sequence of events that will usher in the end of the world. The end comes in Daniel 12:1-2, which says: “At that time Michael, the great prince who protects your people, will arise. There will be a time of distress such as has not happened from the beginning of nations until then. But at that time your people—everyone whose name is found written in the book—will be delivered… Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt.” Likewise, the appearance of Jesus marks the end of times in 1 Thessalonians 4:16, which states that “the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first.” So, in both eschatological passages, Michael/Jesus appears and the dead rise. I found it noteworthy here that in Thessalonians, Jesus has “the voice of the archangel,” which is exactly what we would expect Him to have if He is the Archangel.
None of these arguments is conclusive, and I do not necessarily expect that they will persuade those of you who have a deep-seated conviction against the notion that Michael is a Christophany of Jesus. In fact, some of you have probably already begun to make the two arguments that are usually made to “disprove” that Michael is Jesus.
Counterarguments for Michael as a Christophany of Jesus
Two of Michael’s appearances in the Bible are cited by critics against the position that Michael is Jesus.
First, Jude 1:9 (“But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not himself dare to condemn him for slander but said, ‘The Lord rebuke you!’”) is commonly used to “prove” that Jesus and Michael are not the same entity, because Michael is calling on someone else, “the Lord,” to rebuke Satan.
I find this argument entirely unpersuasive, because of Zechariah 3:1-2, which reads “The Lord said to Satan, “The LORD rebuke you, Satan! The Lord, who has chosen Jerusalem, rebuke you!” When the Lord speaks to Satan in Zechariah, He speaks of himself in the third person to say “The Lord rebuke you.” Thus, when Michael says the exact same phrase, we have no reason to believe that he is not speaking of himself. The parallelism is too precise to be coincidental.
Second, a common translation of Daniel 10:13 (“lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia”) is trotted out to “prove” that Michael is not Jesus, because Michael is merely “one of the chief princes.”
On deeper analysis, this claim is also unconvincing. Both the Literal Standard Version and Young’s Literal Translation of the Bible translates the same passage as “first of the chief heads,” not “one of the chief princes.” Why do they translate it that way? From whence comes such a discrepancy?
The original passage is, of course, in Hebrew, and it reads ‘echad ri’shown sar:
The word ‘echad is frequently translated as “one” in the Bible but also often translated as “first”. The word ri’shown is translated as “first” sometimes but in Daniel 10:13 is invariably translated as “chief” in every version of the Bible found on Bible Hub. The final word, sar, literally means a “head person” but is frequently translated as “prince” or “chief.” And, of course, (as we saw with ri’shown) “chief” can also be translated as “first.”
Thus Michael might be… one of the first heads; one of the first princes; one of the first chiefs; one of the chief heads; one of the chief princes; one of the chief chiefs; first of the first heads; first of the first princes; first of the first chiefs; first of the chief heads; first of the chief princes; first of the chief chiefs; chief of the first heads; chief of the first princes; chief of the first chiefs; chief of the chief heads; chief of the chief princes; or chief of the chief chiefs.
We have a number of plausible translations, half of which single Michael out as being the highest of heavenly authority and the other half of which place him as just one of the highest. Since Michael is uniquely described in the Bible as the Archangel and as the Great Prince, it seems to me that Young’s Literal Translation was correct here. Translates ‘echad ri’shown sar as “first of the chief heads” makes the whole cohesive.
Why Does It Matter?
Let us turn aside from exegesis and consider implications. There are, in my mind, two major implications of the Christophanic view of Michael.
First, the figure of Christ, and thus of Christianity itself, becomes considerably more martial and muscular. As I said in my essay Terrible Swift Sword,
Nowadays, we are widely taught that Jesus was a pacifist; that war is never the answer; and that violence never solves anything… But] whatever spiritual or religious tradition the Right looks to for its support, that tradition must offer warriors a place within the sacred. Something like “muscular” Christianity, reimbued with the old virtues of chivalry, will be required.
Today’s pacifistic teachings create a dichotomy between the holy warfare of the Old Testament and the holy pacifism of the Gospels, and between the Jesus of the Gospels, a peace-loving preacher who offers himself up in sacrifice, and the Jesus of Revelation 19:11-6, a fearsome warrior on the white horse who comes to judge and wage war in righteousness. Understanding Michael, the most “muscular” archetype in all of Christianity, as the pre-incarnate Christ helps rectify the situation. There is no dichotomy: The Son has always been the commander of the Heavenly Host. Jesus came not to bring peace but a sword.
The Christophanic view of Michael leads us back towards the abandoned Patristic Christology of Christus Victor. According to Christus Victory, God sent Christ as bait so that the Devil, not knowing Christ couldn't die permanently, would kill a sinless man, and thus lose all right to rule humanity, both the souls he had snared in Hell and the souls to be born. The Crucifixion was the means to achieve the Harrowing of Hell and victory over evil.
Second, the figure of Satan becomes far more fearsome. As I previously have written in On the Problem of Evil, I hold to a warfare theodicy. Evil exists not because God wills it, or because God allows it so that we gain strength from suffering, or because we deserve it due to original sin, but rather because an active evil principle, a chaotic and entropic actor, works ceaselessly to wreak havoc. For warfare theodicy to be true, then Satan must be formidable indeed — far too formidable to have been defeated by a mere angel or other created being. But if Michael is a Christophany of Jesus, then Michael is not a created being: He is the begotten Son of the Father.
Am I right? I cannot claim it with objective certainty. However, the more I reflect and pray on the matter, the more convinced I become: The Commander of God’s Army in Joshua, the Great Prince and Archangel in Daniel, the Jesus in the Gospels, the Defeater of Satan in Revelations, and the Warrior on the White Horse in Revelations, all are one and the same Being, the begotten Son of God the Father, Christus Victor.
St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle;
Be our defense against the wickedness and snares of the devil.
May God rebuke him, we humbly pray;
And do you, O prince of the heavenly host, by the power of God,
Thrust into hell Satan and the other evil spirits
Who prowl about the world for the ruin of souls.
Amen.
> Thus Michael might be...
It's "echad ha'sarim ha'rishonim" (אחד השרים הראשנים)
Due to the peculiarities of Hebrew grammar the *simple* meaning of the first word almost surely means "one of", not "first" or "chief of". The other two words indeed may have all the meanings you bring even when taken simply.
"Jesus came not to bring peace but a sword."
I have always understood that the sword is a symbol of the Word of God. Which is also Jesus ("The word became flesh".)
The word of god is the power of creation. But also of destruction. God told the Jews that he would crush their enemies. God also told the Jews that he would punish them when they would betray the covenant. God kept his word always: he destroyed the Jews and the enemies of the Jews. Even the Roman Empire was destroyed by God, in my view. In the murder of Jesus, the Jews were guilty because of their lack of faith and their betrayal of the Law and the Prophets, but the whole humanity of all time was also guilty of killing God, which is Jesus the Word of God, through the actions of the Roman Governor Pilate and the soldiers.
In the Apostolic Creed of the Roman Catholic Church, the name of Pontius Pilate is mentioned, and the recitation of the credo is part of every mass, so the name of Pilate is repeated every day, many times, everywhere in the world. I think one reason for this is so that the believers remember that through him they are also guilty of the greatest crime, and yet they have reconciliation through the Grace of God.
That sword, the Word of God, is meant to divide the believers from the unbelievers. That's how I understand this symbol.
This post does not mention the millennary issues of the debate about the nature of Jesus Christ. There are three options: monophysitism, miaphysitism, and dyophysitism. The last one is the one that the COPs agree on, if I'm not mistaken. Also, the Ethiopian church defends the monophysite opinion, and the Christian Church in Persia also rejects the dyophysite idea, in favor of miaphysitism.
The explanation is: dyophysitism is the dual nature of Christ, two natures, the divine nature and human nature, united in one person.
Miaphysitism is, if I remember correctly (this stuff is very confusing), the view that there Jesus Christ has only one nature but two persons, the divine person and human person.
The monophysite view is that there is only one nature, divine, and one person, also divine.
This is one of the features of almost all new religious movements since the 1700s: The rejection of the divine nature of Christ, which leads to the complete denial of Christ. Whenever we find a materialist with spiritual inclinations but pretends to be Christian for whatever reason, it won't take too long to learn that he denies Christ completely. Obviously, the most rampant liberal expressions of the Catholics and the Protestants have no problem in allowing those who deny Christ to call themselves Christians. Everyone else says, "hell no, they are not Christians!"
Now, if anyone wants watch some Christian Martial spirit, look at these two videos of the Spanish Legion during the Holy Week:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XULTHbK5z8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MaTQHR04g2E
Yes, that's the Legion of Franco Bahamonde, Millán Astray and Valenzuela Urzaiz, and many others who had absolutely no fucking respect whatsoever for any form of socialism.