Article: Insight q.v. Michael
The Watchtower compares Jesus with Michael using 3 categories:
The material below comes from ChatGPT. The request was to analyze the article and show how it tries to identify Michael as being Jesus by comparing both individuals.
ChatGPT’s answer: Here is my analysis of how the Watchtower article “Michael” (Insight on the Scriptures) attempts to identify Michael with Jesus, organized under your three headings. I’ll point out where the argument is made, what assumptions are involved, and where the connections are strong or weak.
| Argument in article | How it tries to equate Michael & Jesus | Issues / Observations |
|---|---|---|
| Michael is called “archangel”, the singular “chief angel” | The article claims there is only one archangel (so Michael must be unique) and later suggests that this title must apply to Jesus, so Michael = Jesus. | The Bible only uses “archangel” in the singular in some places (e.g. Jude 9), but that does not necessarily imply identity with Christ. It’s a theological inference. |
| 1 Thessalonians 4:16 describes “the Lord’s voice … the voice of an archangel” | The article argues that since Jesus’ return is heralded by an archangel’s voice, that voice must in fact be his own — i.e. Jesus is that archangel (thus equating Michael with Jesus). | This is a contested reading. Many commentators interpret “archangel’s voice” metaphorically or as accompaniment, not implying identity. |
| “Michael” as a prehuman name for the Son, resumed after his resurrection | The article claims that “Michael” was the heavenly name of the Son before he came to earth as Jesus, and then that he returned to it afterward. | This is a speculative assertion. There is no explicit biblical text that states Jesus’ prehuman name was Michael, or that he resumed the name. |
| Title implications: “great prince,” “standing up,” etc. | The article notes that Daniel calls Michael “the great prince” who “stands up” on behalf of God’s people, and argues that this type of royal title is suitable for Jesus. | The transfer of title does not force identity; one could argue Jesus fulfills that role without needing to be named “Michael.” |
Summary:
The article’s name/title arguments lean heavily on the uniqueness of “archangel,” reinterpretation of certain
texts (1 Thessalonians, Daniel), and the assumption that titles used of Michael must be applied literally to Christ. But the
biblical texts are ambiguous, and the article fills in gaps with theological inference.
| Action / Activity | Parallels drawn in article | Strengths & weaknesses |
|---|---|---|
| War in heaven against the dragon (Satan) | The article points to Revelation 12:7-9, which depicts Michael and his angels fighting the dragon, and then links that to Christ leading heavenly armies (Revelation 19) to argue that Michael is Christ. | The texts are suggestive; the article asserts identity based on similarity of roles (battle, authority). But similarity of function does not necessarily imply identity of subject. |
| Standing up / acting at the time of distress | Daniel 12:1 says Michael “will stand up … in a time of distress.” The article equates that with Jesus’ activity in “the time of the end” (eschatological judgment, kingdom establishment) and argues that Michael must be Jesus. | This is a thematic parallel. But it presumes that Michael’s “standing up” and Christ’s end-time role refer to the same event or function. |
| Leading the armies / executing judgment | The argument is that Michael leads angels against Satan, and Jesus is portrayed as leading heavenly hosts and executing judgment (e.g. Revelation 19). Therefore, Michael = Jesus in action. | Again, this is a parallel of role. The question is whether biblical authors intended to identify them, or simply to ascribe similar functions to different figures. |
| Voice / command at the resurrection / return | The article cites 1 Thessalonians 4:16 (“the voice of the archangel”) as evidence that Jesus’ return is via the archangel’s voice, which they interpret as being Jesus himself. | This is a hinge point for their identity claim. Whether “voice of the archangel” must equal Jesus’ voice is debatable. |
The article uses a pattern: Michael is shown doing powerful, eschatological, judgment-related acts (war in heaven, standing up, leading armies), then points to scriptural descriptions of Jesus doing those same sorts of acts, and infers identity. The logical step is “if two beings do the same high-level role, they must be the same being.” That is precisely where the strongest vulnerability lies (i.e. that parallelism does not guarantee identity).
| Attribute / Description | How the article equates them | Evaluation |
|---|---|---|
| Preeminent / Unique / Chief | The article emphasizes that Michael is called the archangel (singular), and suggests that there is only one such chief angel, which must be Christ. | It depends on an assumption: that “singular archangel” excludes any other being from having the title or role. Critics could argue that “archangel” is used in a limited, honorific way, not necessarily implying exclusivity. The Jews recogized 7 different archangels by name. |
| Royal / Kingly function | Because Michael “stands up” (a king-like act) in Daniel, the article imbues him with royal authority and links that to Christ’s kingship. | The description of “standing up” is metaphorical and depends on how one interprets Daniel’s imagery. |
| ”The Word” and continuity of name | The article argues that before coming to earth, Christ was “the Word” (John 1), and that “Michael” was his prehuman name; after resurrection, he resumed that name. So the attribute of “the Word” and the name Michael are bound together. | The leap from “the Word” to “Michael” is extra-biblical: the Bible does not directly call Jesus “Michael” in any canonical text. Neither is Michael ever called “the Word”. |
| Title meaning: “Who is like God?” | They argue that the name Michael literally means “Who is like God?”, and that this is a challenge or description of Christ’s role as God’s champion or defender. | While “Michael” does mean something like “Who is like God?,” using that as an argument for Christ’s identity is more interpretive than declarative from scripture. |
So the article uses descriptive attributes (uniqueness, kingship, name meaning, continuity) and overlays them on both Michael and Jesus in order to argue for their identity.
The article is not merely listing similarities; it is constructing a systematic argument: it takes various biblical passages about Michael, highlights correspondences with passages about Christ, and then infers identity (rather than simply seeing analogy or typology).
Throughout, the inference step is critical. The article often goes from “Michael does or is something that Jesus also does or is” → “Michael must therefore be Jesus.” That step is not always justified strictly by the text — it depends on theological presuppositions (oneness of archangel, exclusivity, etc.).
The article also works by implication: it suggests that if Michael is not Jesus, then certain texts (1 Thessalonians, Daniel, Revelation) would be inconsistent or contradictory. So it frames the identification of Michael with Jesus as the more harmonious, less problematic reading.
Finally, it layers several arguments (name, action, attribute) so that they reinforce each other. If one line is weaker, the combined weight is intended to make the case stronger overall.
Below is a point-by-point critique of how the Insight on the Scriptures – “Michael” article argues that Michael = Jesus, along with alternate interpretations commonly held by non-JW scholars or mainstream Christian traditions.
I’ve arranged it in the same three-part structure — Names/Titles, Actions/Activity, and Attributes/Descriptions — so you can clearly see where the reasoning is strong, weak, or based on assumptions rather than explicit text.
| Article’s Argument | Critique | Alternate Interpretations |
|---|---|---|
| Michael = “archangel” = the only one → therefore unique → therefore Christ. | The Bible never explicitly says there is only one archangel. The singular form (“the archangel Michael,” Jude 9) could simply refer to a known individual among possibly more than one. The argument assumes exclusivity from grammar alone. | Some early Jewish writings and apocryphal texts (e.g., 1 Enoch, Tobit) mention multiple archangels (Gabriel, Raphael, Uriel, etc.). Many Christian scholars take Jude 9 literally — Michael is an exalted angelic being, not divine. |
| 1 Thessalonians 4:16 – “The Lord will descend … with the voice of an archangel” → his own voice = voice of archangel = Jesus is Michael. | This is a grammatical jump. The verse does not say Jesus is the archangel — it lists accompanying signs: the Lord’s descent with (meta) a shout, with an archangel’s voice, with God’s trumpet. Parallel structure implies accompaniment, not identity. | Mainstream view: Christ descends in power with angelic and divine manifestations; the archangel’s voice is that of a herald accompanying him. Similar imagery in Matt 24:31 (“he will send out his angels with a trumpet”). |
| Prehuman name – Jesus had the name Michael before becoming human, and resumed it afterward. | No biblical text says Jesus ever bore the name Michael. This is pure theological construction to reconcile pre-existence passages with Michael references. | Historic Christian view: the pre-existent Christ is called “the Word” (John 1:1), “Son,” or “Wisdom” (1 Cor 1:24), never “Michael.” |
| Daniel’s title “the great prince” fits Christ’s royal dignity → therefore Michael is Jesus. | Titles can overlap symbolically. Prophetic texts often use royal imagery for both angels and kings. Daniel’s Michael acts as protector of Israel, not universal ruler. | Most scholars see Michael as the angelic patron or guardian of Israel — a distinct heavenly being under God’s authority (cf. Deut 32:8 LXX; Dan 10:13, 21). |
Summary:
The identification of names and titles relies on inference by exclusivity (only
one archangel → must be Jesus) and semantic overlap, not on explicit scriptural
statement. The alternate view allows Michael to remain a unique archangelic leader under Christ’s authority.
| Shared Activity Claimed | Critique | Alternate View |
|---|---|---|
| War in heaven (Rev 12:7–9): Michael and his angels defeat the dragon → Jesus leads armies (Rev 19) → same person. | The two scenes differ in timing, symbolism, and vocabulary. Revelation frequently shows multiple heavenly agents serving God’s purposes. The text never equates Michael with the Lamb. | Many scholars read Michael as God’s military commander (the leader of angelic hosts), while Christ (the Lamb) is the kingly victor. Different roles within the same divine campaign. |
| Standing up at end time (Dan 12:1) = Jesus’ second coming. | The verb “stand up” in Daniel often means “arise to act,” applied to angelic or human agents (see Dan 11:2–3). The text itself doesn’t identify Michael as Messiah. | Common interpretation: Michael’s “standing up” marks angelic protection of God’s people during tribulation, not Christ’s return. |
| Voice commanding resurrection (1 Thess 4:16 again) | Already covered under names — ambiguous syntax; could mean “a voice like an archangel’s” or “with angelic command.” | Most Christian exegetes separate the archangel’s herald cry from Jesus’ own shout. |
| Leading angels / executing judgment (Rev 12, 19) | Similarity of action ≠ identity. The Bible also describes other angels leading hosts (Josh 5:13–15; Dan 10:13). | Christ leads by divine authority; Michael fights by delegated authority. The difference is qualitative, not merely terminological. |
Summary:
The Watchtower reasoning works by parallel action. But biblical narrative often
repeats themes of battle or deliverance across distinct agents. Shared mission does not prove shared identity.
| Claimed Shared Attribute | Critique | Alternate Understanding |
|---|---|---|
| Chief / foremost / unique → matches Christ’s supremacy. | “Archangel” literally means “chief angel,” not “chief over all beings.” Christ is described as superior to angels (Heb 1:4–6), not as one of them. | Hebrews 1 deliberately contrasts the Son and angels, affirming distinct categories. |
| Kingly authority – “stands up” like a ruler. | Michael’s “prince” status is angelic (Dan 10:13 calls him “one of the chief princes”). The phrase “one of” undercuts exclusivity. | Most scholars read “one of the chief princes” to imply multiple archangelic rulers. The Jews recognized 7 different archangels. |
| Meaning of name “Who is like God?” → suitable for Christ. | The name expresses devotion to God, not equality with him. The rhetorical question “Who is like God?” implies God’s unmatched greatness — fitting for a loyal servant, not for God’s Son if he is divine. | In Scripture, angelic names (Michael, Gabriel, etc.) typically glorify God rather than denote deity. |
| Pre- and post-existence continuity (resuming heavenly office) | This rests on theological necessity within JW Christology (since they deny a co-equal Trinity). It’s circular: Michael = Jesus because the Son must have existed prehuman; and the Son’s prehuman name must therefore be Michael. | Classical Christianity affirms pre-existence but sees the Son as eternally divine, not as a renamed angelic being. |
Summary:
The “attributes” parallels depend on viewing Jesus as a created spirit creature, which fits JW theology but conflicts with
mainstream exegesis of Hebrews 1–2 and John 1, where Christ is presented as above angels, not among them.
| Aspect | JW Article Approach | Scholarly/Traditional Counterpoint |
|---|---|---|
| Method | Builds identification from similarities (titles, roles, activities) → infers identity. | Parallels show analogy of function, not ontological identity. |
| Scriptural clarity | No verse explicitly states “Jesus is Michael.” | Multiple verses explicitly differentiate the Son from angels (Heb 1:5–6; Col 1:16–17). |
| Coherence within theology | Fits JW doctrine (created Son, chief of angels). | Conflicts with mainstream Christology (eternal Son, worshiped by angels). |
| Hermeneutical style | Harmonizing proof-text method: select verses that sound parallel, read through doctrinal lens. | Contextual/literary exegesis treats Michael texts within Jewish apocalyptic framework — Michael = national guardian angel, not Messiah. |
The article constructs a cumulative case:
If Michael is the only archangel, leads heavenly armies, stands up in the end, and his voice heralds resurrection — and if Jesus does those same things — then they must be the same person.
However:
Each parallel is plausible but not definitive.
No text ever explicitly identifies Michael with Jesus.
Several key passages (esp. Hebrews 1) actually distinguish Jesus from angels in essence and authority.
Thus, the Watchtower argument rests on inference and theological necessity, not on unambiguous biblical evidence.
Here’s a clear, side-by-side comparison chart showing how the Insight on the Scriptures
article tries to identify Michael with Jesus, contrasted with the mainstream
or scholarly interpretation.
It’s organized by your three categories: Names/Titles,
Actions/Activity, and Attributes/Descriptions.
| Category | Watchtower / JW Reasoning | Mainstream / Scholarly Interpretation |
|---|---|---|
| Name “Michael” | Means “Who is like God?” — seen as an appropriate description for Christ, God’s chief representative. | The name is a devotional question, affirming that no one is like God — fitting for an angelic servant, not for God’s Son himself. |
| Title “Archangel” | There is only one archangel — the “chief angel” — therefore Michael must be that one, and Jesus must be Michael. | “Archangel” appears in the singular (Jude 9) but does not imply uniqueness. Jewish writings mention several archangels. Jesus is said to be greater than the angels (Heb 1:4-6), not one of them. Dan 10:13 describes Michael as “one of the chief princes” [NWT: “foremost princes”], thus he is a member of equals in a group, not unique. |
| 1 Thessalonians 4:16 | “The Lord descends…with the voice of an archangel” → the Lord’s own voice must be that of the archangel = identity. | Grammar shows accompaniment (“with”), not equivalence. The archangel’s call and the trumpet are part of the scene, not Jesus’ identity. |
| Pre-human name | Jesus existed before birth as the spirit creature Michael, later became human, then resumed the heavenly name. | Scripture never says Jesus was ever called Michael. The pre-existent Son is identified as the Word (John 1:1), not as an angel. |
| Title “Great Prince” (Dan 12:1) | Michael “stands up” for God’s people — viewed as Christ’s kingly activity at the end. | “Prince” is an angelic rank (Dan 10:13 – ‘one of the chief princes’). Michael acts under God’s command, not as the Messiah himself. |
| Category | Watchtower / JW Reasoning | Mainstream / Scholarly Interpretation |
|---|---|---|
| War in heaven (Rev 12:7-9) | Michael leads angels against Satan; Jesus also defeats Satan — same act → same being. | Revelation distinguishes the figures: Michael fights the dragon; the Lamb rules and judges. Similar mission ≠ identity. |
| Standing up / deliverance (Dan 12:1) | Michael “stands up” to protect God’s people during the end times — same as Christ’s return. | “Standing up” is a Hebrew idiom for taking action. Michael protects Israel; Christ returns to judge all nations — related themes, different scope. |
| Voice at resurrection (1 Thess 4:16) | The “voice of the archangel” belongs to Jesus himself when he raises the dead. | The text lists three accompanying sounds: a shout, an archangel’s voice, and God’s trumpet — heavenly announcements with Christ, not by him as archangel. |
| Leading angels / executing judgment | Michael leads angels; Jesus leads heavenly armies in judgment (Rev 19) → therefore same leader. | Angelic hosts often act under divine command. Michael can be commander of angels, while Christ is commander of all creation — superior rank, not identical role. |
| Category | Watchtower / JW Reasoning | Mainstream / Scholarly Interpretation |
|---|---|---|
| Chief / foremost | “Archangel” = highest spirit creature → suitable for the exalted but created Son. | “Archangel” still means angelic. Hebrews 1 emphasizes that the Son is not an angel but is worshiped by angels. |
| Royal / Kingly authority | Michael “stands up” like a king defending God’s people. | Daniel calls Michael “one of the chief princes,” implying several — an exalted guardian angel, not the Messianic King. |
| Meaning of name | “Who is like God?” fits Jesus as the perfect reflection of God’s image. | The name exalts God’s uniqueness, not the bearer’s equality with Him. |
| Pre- and post-existence continuity | Christ resumes his role as Michael after resurrection. | No verse states that Jesus ever bore that name or office; it is doctrinal speculation needed to support JW Christology. |
| Aspect | JW / Watchtower Position | Mainstream Christian Understanding |
|---|---|---|
| Identity | Michael is Jesus (the same person: prehuman, resurrected, heavenly form). | Michael is a distinct angelic being, a servant of God; Jesus is above angels, divine Son and Lord. |
| Supporting texts | Daniel 10, 12; Revelation 12; 1 Thess 4:16; Jude 9. | Hebrews 1–2; Colossians 1:15-18; John 1:1-3, which distinguish Jesus from angels. |
| Hermeneutic style | Collects parallels in title and role → infers identity by similarity. | Reads each passage in literary and theological context → sees Michael as angelic guardian within apocalyptic imagery. |
| Core assumption | Jesus is a created spirit creature; therefore his highest rank = chief angel. | Jesus is eternal, Creator of angels (John 1:3), therefore cannot be one. |