Michael the Archangel and Jesus Christ

//Michael the Archangel and Jesus Christ

QUESTION #17 – According to Revelation 22:6, Jehovah sent his angel. However, several verses later in the same chapter at Revelation 22:16, it says Jesus sent his angel. How can this be true unless Jesus is Jehovah?

Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that Jehovah has given Jesus all authority, in heaven and on earth. That means Jesus has been given authority over Jehovah’s angels. They follow his commands as if he was Jehovah.

QUESTION # 18 – If Jesus became Michael the Archangel after his death as a human, why is he still referred to as Jesus from Acts onward?

Jesus has had a unique and extraordinary existence. For unknown eons the person who became Jesus lived in heaven prior to his becoming human. He was not known as Jesus then. That should be evident from the fact that the name Jesus literally means “Jehovah is salvation.” Needless to say, the Word was in existence long before mankind even existed or came to be in need of salvation.

Since God himself and every person and every angel has a personal name, obviously the Word had a personal name too. There are many reasons to believe that his original name was Michael.

When Jesus gave his life and was then resurrected and ascended back to heaven he resumed life as Michael, the foremost angel. However, he also retained his earthly name as well. That should not be considered odd or unusual given the fact that Jesus has lived in two completely different realms of existence —human and spirit. But it is what Jesus did as a human that is the basis for our having a relationship with him now.

For example, Jesus’ kingship derives from the fact that he was an heir to the throne of David. And his having been born again as the first person anointed by God is the basis for Jesus becoming a spirit. And his title to the throne of Israel transfers with him.

After all, it is as Jesus said to Nicodemus in the 3rd chapter of John, “what is flesh is flesh and what is spirit is spirit.” In other words, humans made of flesh and blood have no ability to transcend into spirits. The notion that humans have a spirit that survives death is the stuff of myth —the foundational lie of virtually all demon religion. The point is, had Jesus not been begotten by holy spirit to become a new creation he could not have returned to heaven. So, it is most appropriate that the Word retain his earthly name since that defines his identity now.

QUESTION # 19 – If Jesus became Michael the Archangel after his death as a human, did Jesus lie when he said in Revelation 22:16 that his name is Jesus?

See previous answer.

QUESTION #20 – If Jesus is now Michael the Archangel, why is it that you pray to God in the name of Jesus and not in the name of Michael?

See previous answer.

QUESTION #21 – Since you believe the man Jesus ceased to exist and he became Michael the Archangel, wouldn’t you be in an unsaved condition since the Bible clearly says there is no name other than Jesus by which we must be saved (Acts 4:12)?

No untaught churchgoer can possibly hope to comprehend the deep things of the truth. But the truth is, as mentioned already, Jesus was born again. No trinitarian can comprehend this, but Jesus was the very first person to undergo the anointing by the holy spirit. That is why in the eighth chapter of Romans Paul referred to Jesus as the “firstborn of many brothers.” His “brothers” being those who are also anointed and adopted as sons of God.

Upon Jesus’ death he ceased to exist as a living, breathing man. Upon his resurrection he became a spirit. That is because he had been born again prior to his death. The man Jesus, the flesh and blood body was sacrificed to God. It is gone, forever, as payment for our sins. Jesus did not come back to life as a man. But, Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that Jesus’ sacrificial course as a man provided the ransom, and our faith in his life’s course, death and subsequent resurrection, is the basis for salvation. The fact that Jesus resumed his former name of Michael is irrelevant.

QUESTION #22 – If Jesus is Michael the Archangel, then wouldn’t Jehovah also need to be an archangel in order for Hebrews 1:3 to be true?

Trinitarianism is the epitome of stupidity. Trinitarians believe that there is a father and son who do not have anything remotely similar to a father/son relationship. It is a mystery why they even pretend to be Father and Son. Although the Scriptures reveal that Jesus had a prehuman existence and was the very first creation of God, trinitarians claim he was uncreated. Truly, the stupidity of trinitarianism is simply staggering.

The fact is, all of the angels are sons of God. Like the original humans, angels are made in God’s image too —only of a much higher order than flesh. But Jehovah is their Father, one and all. However, the Firstborn is exactly like Jehovah. He is the Son of God’s love —his favorite, if you prefer. When Jesus was on earth he indicated the extent of his closeness to the Father when he said “All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one fully knows the Son except the Father; neither does anyone fully know the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son is willing to reveal him.”

In the darkened mind of a trinitarian Jesus must be playing some sort of shell game, pretending to be a son who intimately knows God, when in fact he is nothing of the sort. He is God, who only pretends not to be.

QUESTION #23 – If Jesus is Michael the Archangel, why did God command in Hebrews 1:6 that ALL the angels worship (do obeisance) him?

As the context of Hebrews indicates the command for all of God’s angels to bow before the Son takes place at Christ’s second coming. Before that event the angels are not required to worship him. Interestingly, Revelation the 12th chapter depicts Michael and his angels battling with Satan and his angels.  Notably, too, that battle erupts when the Kingdom of God comes to power. Elsewhere, though, the angels are shown to be under the command of Jesus. So, whose angels are they — Michael’s or Jesus’? There is no question that it is Jesus who leads the war against Satan. It is unthinkable that anyone other than Jesus would do so since he is destined to crush the serpent. But, there is Michael leading the charge. It requires some intelligence to make the connection.

But, Jehovah does not command the angels to bow before Michael. They are commanded to do obeisance before Jesus Christ for the reason that Jehovah decreed that his Son should be so honored for having obeyed God without reservation. True, Michael and Jesus are the same person, but he is honored for what he did as a human.

QUESTION #24 – If Jesus is Michael the Archangel, why does Hebrews 1:13 say “about which of the angels…”?

Trinitarians possess an impenetrable denseness of mind. In their folly they would attribute their own foolishness to God, imagining that since God did not speak those words to any angel he therefore had to be speaking to himself, proudly declaring himself to be his own son and then inviting his son-self to sit beside himself until he places all of his enemies as a stool for his own feet. Even though they apparently read the Scriptures looking for bits and pieces to prove their lie, it is simply beyond the grasp of a trinitarian that Jehovah did not specifically honor any angel by declaring him to be his son, but he did honor a man in such a way. The reason that is extraordinary is because, as Paul said, humans are by order of rank a little lower than the angels. So, Jehovah elevated a man above the angels. A trinitarian can never understand this.

If Jesus is Michael the Archangel, why does Hebrews 2:5 say that it is not to angels that God has subjected the Earth to come, but just a few verses later at Hebrews 2:8, it says that ALL THINGS have been subjected under Jesus?

Again, the empty-headedness of trinitarians is on full display. They exhibit a profound and utter cluelessness about the matters they pretend to know.

When God created Adam and Eve he essentially bequeathed the custody of the entire earth to them and their offspring, saying to them ‘have in subjection the fish of the sea and flying creatures and every living thing, etc.’ Of course, after Adam and Eve sinned against God they were no longer qualified to fill the earth and subdue it. That is why Paul noted, that “now, though, we do not yet see all things in subjection to him. But we do see Jesus, who was made a little lower than angels, now crowned with glory and honor for having suffered death, so that by God’s undeserved kindness he might taste death for everyone.”

As the second perfect man, the last Adam, and being related to Adam via Mary, his birth mother, Jesus inherited the right to fill the earth and subdue it, which no imperfect human could accomplish. However, it was not Jehovah’s will that he do so as a man. And for a fact Jesus is no longer in a state of existence lower than the angels. But, as mentioned already, even though Jesus sacrificed his flesh he retains the rights he acquired as a human —when he was a little lower than the angels. Thus, as a glorified spirit Jesus is still entitled to subdue the earth and this he will do when he comes in the glory of his Father and assumes regency over the earth.

QUESTION #24 – If 1 Thessalonians 4:16 proves Jesus is Michael the Archangel simply because Jesus comes with the voice of an Archangel, doesn’t this also mean he is a trumpet because he comes with God’s trumpet?

“By wisdom the shrewd man understands the way he is going, but the stupid are deceived by their foolishness.” —Proverbs 14:8

QUESTION #25 – If Jesus is Michael the Archangel, how could all things have been created for him and through him (Colossians 1:16)?

Leave it to the trinitarian to explain how God is the Firstborn of all creation. It is at the very least amusing.

Related article on the Michael the Archangel/Jesus connection 

And, Is Jesus Michael the Archangel?

image_pdfimage_print
2017-03-20T17:55:05+00:00 March 20th, 2017|60 Questions|29 Comments
  • Andres Felipe

    Many thanks Robert is funny as you make ridiculous trinitarios; I laughed a little with your sarcasm for them. … it really is stupid to believe that jehovah can not put his son in a high position in gratitude for his sacrifice. … But the Trinitarians will never understand that

  • Daisy

    Now we know who the Archangel Michael is. The devil does too, but it won’t save him.

  • Burt Reynolds

    It’s an Interesting point that I had not considered. The watchtower taught that the life of Jehovah’s son was transferred to human form, thus it can be said that there was no break in his life. It is clear he knew who he was. Thus when he died, that life came to its end. When we die as humans, we accept that life is recreated for us, intact with memory, experience, presumably a past, otherwise how would we equate the gift of the ransome with salvation? So what is the situation with Jesus? It is said that he is the first of those born again. Do we understand then that Christ risen, is not the same being than the Word at the beginning? There is no body to recreate, and it suggests to my mind that awareness or consciousness if you like, is retained, and that life itself is a force and not consciousness. I’m just ruminating, but Roberts article just raised the thought in my mind. Nothing to do with trinity I hasten to add!

    • thinking is alowed here. (unlike the kingdom halls)

    • Richard Long

      Am I mistaken that young Jesus memory of his prehuman existence was blocked or otherwise lost until sometime after his baptism by John. At work, don’t have references handy. I’ve always understood that Michael did, if fact, cease to exist. Help me out here, please.

      • Burt Reynolds

        I don’t recall any suggestion that Jesus was unaware of his pre-human existence.mwhen his family took him to the temple when he was a young boy, they lost him there after the festival was over and went home unaware that he was not with them. They had to traipse back to Jerusalem to look for him and found him in the temple. He said to them in query as yo why they should be looking for him by saying, ‘do you not know that I should be about my fathers business?’ I could be wrong, but that is what I believe to be the case.

        • Richard Long

          Will have to investigate. Many years gone by since attending meetings regularly. Sometimes​ tidbits heard from a CO or DO while in service or recreating stick and opinions take the form of fact when one has allowed the spiritual mind to weaken as I have. Thank you for providing me the opportunity to prove or disprove the notion for myself, as I should have before running off at the keyboard. You be the steel to my flint, ok brother?

  • Francis Bencharles

    Is there anywhere in the Bible where Michael is called the Archangel before Jesus (Michael) died as a ransom for mankind? In Daniel he is simply called Michael, “one of” the chief princes. I went to http://www.biblestudytools.com/rhe/daniel/10.html and read at least 10 different versions (there were many more to choose from) and they all said “one of” not the foremost prince. It appears to me from my Bible study that Michael must have “become” the foremost prince or archangel after he as Jesus laid down his life as a ransom for mankind. Otherwise there would no doubt be places in the Hebrew and Aramaic Scriptures that would say otherwise, but there are not. I do agree with you that Jesus/Michael is no part of any Trinity in any form whatsoever. It’s just a silly teaching.

    • Good point. One of the foremost princes become THE foremost prince after his resurrection, the Prince of princes, the arch-prince – the Archangel.

      • Daisy

        i was reading something on the lines of this, earlier today; that at first glance, it appears that Michael is only “one of” the chief princes. The explanation as far as I can remember is that it is an unfortunate translation of the word “one” which comes from the Hebrew word “echad”, frequently translated as “first” gen 1:5 (same Hebrew word). It went on to say that knowing this, changes the whole meaning of the verse to Michael being first of, greatest or highest of, to the chief of princes—-again a reference to Jesus.

        • Francis Bencharles

          Hi Daisy:

          In Hebrew and Greek for that matter, the words used in the Bible do have a certain flexibility as to how they “could be” or “can be” translated. Some words have six, seven and even more options as to their translation. The foremost prince is one of those options. That being said, you would wonder why most, easily by 10 or 20 to one choose to translate that word (‘echad) pronounced ekh awd’ as “one of” the foremost princes. Hit that link that I included in my last comment and it will take you to a bible study site that allows you to look at any scripture in easily 25-40 different versions of the scriptures. Also, look it up in a good interlinear. Most that I have checked it in have it as “one of” with just a couple as “the” foremost prince. Also, it remains that nowhere will you find where the Bible before the Greek Scriptures in Michael called the archangel. Writers in the Greek scriptures refer to him as the archangel when talking about past acts, but these are all after he gave his life as a ransom and not before. It certainly is not a salvation issue though, so in the long run I suppose it doesn’t matter that much. But it is an interesting point to consider.

          • Daisy

            Very interesting point Francis…thank you..and concisely summed up by Robert. Appreciated.

        • Basavaraj Of North Karnataka

          I noted your point and will be discussing with my wife in our family worship to night. To be true in our family worship many of the matters are discussed based on Roberts article rather than Watch tower study material.

      • Basavaraj Of North Karnataka

        Your point is fantastic.

      • Burt Reynolds

        Was Michael not, as the son of Jehovah, the foremost above all from the beginning? He was given yet more power after his resurrection, but it appears that he was never ‘just one’ of others was he?

        • Daisy

          In the beginning was the Word…..Robert has joined the dots to Michael being the name of the Word… so yes, he was first and foremost and never ‘just one’ of the others…

    • Basavaraj Of North Karnataka

      Yes really nice point

    • Beverly kenyon

      You made a brilliant point Francis and I clicked on that link last night (which was fantastic btw) and read quite a few different versions of that chapter and was also wondering why the powerful Angel speaking to Daniel ended the conversation in that chapter by saying, your Prince, your Angel. Why ‘your’? Probably means nothing.

      • because he was part of the human family, etc..

        • Beverly kenyon

          So kept thinking about what that Angel said to Daniel on and off all day and yes, you’re right about that point DA, and I came up with the Angel that will be fighting for him. I just wondered what Daniel thought about the Angel saying, your prince. Hey DA, just been doing a bit of digging about Nimrod because I was fascinated and felt a bit sick about Nimrod marrying his own mother (yuk) as I did not know that about him and only found out when Cathii D’Anthonii mentioned it in her post. Nimrod tried to bring in a new world order..one government…and that’s why Jehovah confused their language and disrupted his plans as he was considered a hero by the people and they looked to him for protection and security and that reminded me of the 8th King and a new world order and you just know who was the real driving force and power behind that little scheme, so soon Satan will bringing that same idea out of his bag of tricks! Talk about recycling!

          • Francis Bencharles

            Hi Beverly:

            I’m sure that there are many explanations for what the Bible means when it says “your prince”. Here’s mine for what it is worth.

            Daniel 12:1 says ““During that time Miʹcha·el*+ will stand up,* the great prince+ who is standing in behalf of your people.” Your people in this verse means the Israelites and even of a finer meaning, the faithful members of Israel including Daniel, his three companions and who knows how many more of the ones carted off to Babylon.

            So, he is prince over Israel then, and he was also “one of ” the foremost princes at that time.

            Daniel is obviously Daniel in the literal. In the future symbolic meaning I think Daniel is a composite person and represents the faithful members of Christ’s Bride that find themselves trapped in the Watchtower as Daniel was trapped in Babylon.

            • Beverly kenyon

              Perfect! The answer is there in that chapter. DA was right as well but you spell it out. I know it was only a simple thought but I had a feeling that’s what it might’ve meant but don’t trust my own thinking also that’s an interesting point in your last paragraph. Thank you for your reply Francis.

  • Basavaraj Of North Karnataka

    Colossians 1:15 is a scripture that locks the trinitarian and Proverbs 14:8 aptly fits for them. Nice work brother I have taken a print out and saved a soft copy in my system making a Trinity folder. Your argument is better than WTS they have argued with misquotes that is why Trinity brochure in not available in the jw.org website. But you have proved with scriptures.You are truly a man for Jehovah just like Jeremiah the ancient prophet.

  • “Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that Jehovah has given Jesus all authority, in heaven and on earth. That means Jesus has been given authority over Jehovah’s angels. They follow his commands as if he was Jehovah.” ergo Archangel lol
    people are so stupid haha

    • Francis Bencharles

      That is very true D.A. Jehovah made Jesus/Michael the head of the angels after he had given his life as a ransom and not before. If Jesus/Michael was already the chief one of the angels in Daniel then what was the purpose of saying that he was raised to a superior position in the Christian scriptures. If he was the Archangel the whole time he did not need to be raised up to a superior position but was superior all that time. Just logic.

      • Richard Long

        Because never before his Resurrection had he, Michael/Jesus, nor any other created being, possessed life of himself. He was then Archangel 2.0, if you will. Whatever power, rights and responsibilities Michael/The Word possessed​ originally were only forfeited temporarily and voluntarily while he was “on assignment” providing the ransom. Upon Resurrection to immortality and incorruptibility, an upgrade, if you will, Jesus reclaimed and resumed his previous Michael/The Word power, rights and responsibilities while simultaneously accepting his new, elevated life form with all of its Jesus power, rights and responsibilities. Yes, the only begotten son of Jehovah can walk and chew gum at the same, while wearing a shirt with his Original name embroidered above the pocket where a name tag bearing his earned name is hung.

  • haha, “Trinitarianism is the epitome of stupidity.” somebody needs to put that on a picture of Robert in quotes, ha

  • kieth900

    Hi everyone, it is my understanding that The King did not have the same qualities when he was first created by Jehovah as when he was recreated by Him. Michael had eternal life as the rest of the angels have till now, but Jesus The King is immortal now and he has a god like aperance. My question now is was Michael exalted by Jehovah and given a higher form of existence after living as a human or was Michael of the same nature as he is now? Thank you for your help.

  • kieth900

    Hi everyone, it is my understanding that The King did not have the same qualities when he was first created by Jehovah as when he was recreated by Him. Michael had eternal life as the rest of the angels have till now, but Jesus The King is immortal now and he has a god like aperance. My question now is was Michael exalted by Jehovah and given a higher form of existence after living as a human or was Michael of the same nature as he is now? Thank you for your help.

Skip to toolbar