Is Jesus Christ really Michael the archangel?
Early references where the WT first claimed that Jesus = Michael
Watchtower
May 1 1897
The
Eternal Purpose 1906 includes the claim: “The Son was the first created being”
Watchtower March 1, 1925
“Michael, who is Christ the Lord, has been present since 1874”
Creation
1927
Harp
of God 1928
Watchtower
April 1, 1932
Watchtower April 1, 2010 p. 19 Our Readers Ask...
Is Jesus the Archangel Michael?
Insight on the Scriptures, q.v. Michael
Aid to Bible Understanding, q.v. Michael
While admitting in Awake February 8, 2002, p. 16, that …there is no
statement in the Bible that categorically identifies Michael the archangel as Jesus…
, they nevertheless
boldly make that assertion.
Insight to the Scriptures vol 2, q.v. "Michael" claims: Scriptural evidence indicates that the name Michael applied to God’s Son before he left heaven to become Jesus Christ and also after his return.… In his prehuman existence Jesus was called “the Word.” (Joh 1:1) He also had the personal name Michael. By retaining the name Jesus after his resurrection (Act 9:5), “the Word” shows that he is identical with the Son of God on earth. His resuming his heavenly name Michael and his title (or name) “The Word of God” (Re 19:13) ties him in with his prehuman existence.
*** w10 4/1 p. 19 Is Jesus the Archangel Michael? ***
So Michael the archangel is Jesus in his prehuman existence. After his resurrection and return to heaven, Jesus resumed his service as Michael, the chief angel, “to the glory of God the Father.”—Philippians 2:11.
So, if there is any evidence that the pre-incarnate Jesus spoke about Michael as another entity then it would be evidence that they are two separate persons and not the same individual.
An examination of the process the Watchtower uses to arrive at their doctrine that Jesus is Michael the archangel reveals that they rely on comparing the
- Names or Titles
- Actions or Activity
- Attributes or Descriptions
given to the persons involved. I agree that using these criteria is a valid method of reasoning. Indeed, using these very same criteria is how theologians starting from the early church fathers have come to the doctrine of the Trinity. Seeing as Michael or the archangel is mentioned in only 6 verses of the Bible it would not be unreasonable to expect the evidence to be extremely strong and clear to justify such a conclusion based on such a small number of verses. It would have to be strong enough to sweep away 20 centuries of Christian thought, study, and writing about the Trinity.
The WTBTS uses at least three weak arguments against the doctrine of the trinity.
- it’s not explicitly mentioned in scripture
- it was formulated at a late date
- the Father and the Son don’t share all of the same titles, especially, Jesus is not called “Almighty God”.
1. Explicitly mentioned in scripture
The Watchtower Organization insists that the doctrine of the Trinity must be rejected because it is not explicitly mentioned in scripture. This is obviously true, but if that is a good argument then it is worth noting that the Bible also nowhere explicitly states that Jesus is Michael the archangel. They admit this in an Awake! article: “there is no statement in the Bible that categorically identifies Michael the archangel as Jesus”. But that doesn’t stop the WT organization from making the claim they are the same individual. So it seems that when an argument or principle works against others, they use it. When that same argument works against their own position then they simply hope no one notices. This kind of reasoning is called Special Pleading: “If X then Y; except when it hurts me.” There are all kinds of words JWs [and Christians] use that are not in the Bible, starting with the word “Bible” itself. The Watchtower doesn’t let this kind of argument keep them from teaching certain doctrines themselves. For example, even though the words “theocratic organization” are not found in the pages of Scripture, they boldly assert that they are the only true “theocratic organization” on earth. Other doctrines taught and phrases which don’t appear explicitly in scripture include: “2 classes” of believers, the date “1914,” “blood transfusions” (or any of the multiple components of blood itself), “Kingdom Hall,” “Jehovah’s Organization,” “Publishers,” “Pioneers”, “ministerial servants,” “overlapping generation,” and the “Governing Body.” Obviously, the requirement that “it must be explicitly mentioned in scripture” doesn’t seem to be such an important principle if they can accept, believe, use and teach so many things that don’t appear literally in the Bible. More likely, they simply use whatever argument they can find against those they disagree with, hoping that people won’t notice that they don’t use the argument consistently, with integrity or consider it an actual principle that must be followed by everyone. This is how special pleading works.
2. The late-date argument
Another reason why the Watchtower rejects the doctrine of the Trinity is because the doctrine was first explicitly formulated in the 4th century (even though Tertullian first used the word in the 2nd or 3rdcentury already). You could call this a late-date argument. Unbelievably enough though, they have no qualms about replacing it with their Michael = Jesus doctrine which was first formulated in the 19th century! [The Watchtower claims that others who equated Jesus and Michael include: Ernst Wilhelm Hengstenberg (1802–1869), Imperial Bible Dictionary (1866), and Adam Clarke (1762–1832).]
Another topic that has a “late-date” aspect to it is the establishment of which books were considered to be part of the “canon” or accepted as scripture. The canon was established in the 3rd century yet that does not pose a problem for the WT organization.
If this really is a valid criteria for judging a doctrine then it must also be admitted by JW’s that many (if not all) of their distinctive doctrines fail the same test. These include their doctrines that Jesus is Michael the archangel, the doctrine that the faithful and discreet servant is a class of people, that there are two classes of Christians - the 144,000 with the heavenly hope and the great crowd with the earthly hope, and that Jesus returned invisibly in 1914. All fail the same test. The late date argument is a two-edged sword. If the fourth century is beyond the time when doctrines can be formulated, then certainly the 19th to 21st centuries are well past the due date as well. If “new light” can arrive in the 19th century then couldn’t it also have been given in the 4th? It’s not really a “principle” if you expect others to follow it but allow yourself to ignore it. That’s called Special Pleading: “If X then Y, except when it hurts me”. It’s not really a strong argument if it undermines your own position.
3. Jesus is never called “Almighty God”
In their reasoning against the doctrine of the Trinity the WTBTS makes a great deal about the fact that Jesus, while admittedly called “God” repeatedly, is never called “Almighty God.” This is a curious argument. It seems to establish a principle that all three persons must be described identically before they can be accepted as God or divine. This is an entirely arbitrary criteria to use to establish identities. If that is really a necessary condition then does the doctrine of Jesus being Michael the archangel meet that standard? Are they both described in equal terms? Is Michael ever called “Saviour,” “Redeemer,” “Lord,” “King of kings and Lord of lords,” “Judge,” “Holy One of God,” “Creator,” “Alpha and Omega,” “the beginning and the end,” or any of the 100 other names given to Christ? Obviously not! But how many JWs notice this double standard between how they criticize trinitarians and how easily they accept their own doctrine? The real problem for JWs regarding the title “Almighty God” is not the lack of the “Almighty” part, but the fact that he is called “God” and never an “angel.”
The point I wish to make with these three issues is that, if you make a criticism based on a principle, or reason on a passage or make a logical argument, make sure that it doesn’t work against you somewhere else. Otherwise you are shooting yourself in your own foot. It does not take long to see that some of the very arguments the Watchtower brings against the Trinity doctrine actually argue against the Michael = Jesus doctrine as well. Nowhere does the Bible literally state that “Michael is Jesus” or that “Jesus is Michael.” Thus, it seems that, at the outset at least, both doctrines are based on reasoning from Scripture and thus they are open to testing the reasoning process and the strength of their evidence and arguments.
Now, if JW’s are willing to accept the Watchtower doctrine that Jesus is Michael in spite of the fact that it is not stated literally anywhere in the Bible and that it was formulated very late in history, then these same arguments cannot be used against the doctrine of the Trinity. We must be fair in examining each others views and not demand a higher level of support from those we disagree with than we accept for our own. Further, seeing as both views rely on reasoning to arrive at their conclusions then we can legitimately compare the quality and the quantity of evidence that is used to support each doctrine to see which is stronger. Comparisons and contrasts lead to clarity. IF you are willing to accept one view based on a process of reasoning, then have the intellectual honesty to evaluate the evidence provided for the other view and not demand more from them than you are willing to accept for your own position.
Now let’s continue by studying the scriptures. Seeing as the following list of verses are all the verses (6) that mention either Michael or the archangel, the strongest evidence for identifying Jesus as being Michael must be found in them.
Dan 10:13 … Then behold Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me.
Dan 10:21 … there is no one who stands firmly with me against these except Michael your prince.
Dan 12:1 Now at that time Michael, the great prince who stands over the sons of your people, will arise.
1Th 4:16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trumpet of God; and the dead in Christ shall rise first.
Jude 9 But Michael the archangel, when he disputed with the devil and argued about the body of Moses, did not dare to pronounce against him a railing judgment, but said, “The Lord rebuke you.”
Rev 12:7 And there was war in heaven, Michael and his angels waging war with the dragon.
Comments on these verses
We will use the same criteria the Watchtower organization uses to compare the two individuals. We will compare the:
- Names or Titles
- Actions or Activity
- Attributes or Descriptions
of both Michael and Jesus. Let’s see how strong the connections are and if there are any reasons not to identify Michael as being Jesus.
On Dan 10:13,21; 12:1
The first three references to the name “Michael” occur in a monologue that begins in Daniel chapter 10 and ends in chapter 12. It is given by a single unnamed person. This person refers to Michael as “one of the chief princes” (note the plural), “your prince,” and then in Dan 12:1 “the great prince.” Note that Michael is an equal in a group that share the same title. [The Jews accepted seven archangels, identified as: Michael, Gabriel, Raphael, Uriel, Raguel, Sariel (or Zerachiel), and Remiel (or Jerahmeel). Some Jewish branches may not consider all of the names listed above as canonical or authoritative.] He is also called “your prince” in v. 21 by which is meant the prince of the people of Israel (12:1). Jesus Christ is called “King,” “your King,” “King of the Jews,” “Lord of lords,” “King of kings,” but never “your [Israel’s] prince.” He is called “the Prince of peace” in Isaiah 9:6. Yet notice that Michael shares none of the 100 titles or names by which Jesus Christ is referred to in Scripture, most notably: “Saviour,” “Redeemer,” “Lord,” “King of kings and Lord of lords,” “Judge,” “Holy One of God,” “Creator,” “Alpha and Omega,” “the beginning and the end” and more. You can be sure that if they had any names or titles in common, the Watchtower, and many others in history, would have been very quick to call attention to that and use it to establish their case that Michael is actually Jesus.
Next, who is the “I” and “me” who speaks to Daniel (and mentions Michael) in his vision (Dan 10:4-21)? Who is the speaker? He is not given a name here but he does have a detailed description. Let’s compare the speakers in 2 different visions reported by Daniel and the apostle John. Even though there are 8 points of striking similarity, the Watchtower organization has studiously avoided discussing the similarities of these two passages because of the obvious implications. This is another case of JWs receiving a guided tour of scripture. The WTBTS carefully points to verses that support their teachings and even more carefully avoids discussing any verses that undermine their teachings. If “a threefold cord is not quickly broken” (Eccl 4:12) what shall we then say about the following 8 points of similarity? (However, in what could be called an implicit agreement to connecting these two visions to the same person, the NWT 1984 lists 7 cross-references in Dan 10:5-21 to Rev 1:13-15; 2:18. Four of these cross-references were subsequently removed in the NWT 2013 edition, leaving only 3 cross-references in verses 10-19).
| Item | Dan 10:4-21 | Rev 1:12-18 |
|---|---|---|
| linen clothes | v. 5 clothed in linen (NWT 1984 has xref to Rev 1:13) | v. 13 clothed in a robe |
| belt of gold | v. 5 around his waist was a belt made of gold | v. 13 girded across His chest with a golden sash |
| face | v. 6 his face had an appearance like lightning | v. 14,16 His head and His hair were white like white wool, like snow |
| eyes of fire | v. 6 His eyes were like blazing torches (NWT 1984 has xref to Rev 1:14 and Rev 2:18) | v. 14 His eyes were like a flame of fire. (See also: Rev 2:18 “…the Son of God, who has eyes like a flame of fire, and His feet are like burnished bronze.” Rev 19:12 “His eyes are a fiery flame…”) |
| arms and feet of bronze | v. 6 his arms and feet had the gleam of polished bronze (NWT 1984 has xref to Rev 1:15) | v. 15 His feet were like burnished bronze, when it has been made to glow in a furnace |
| thunderous voice | v. 6 His voice thundered forth like the sound of a large crowd | v. 15 His voice was like the sound of many waters |
| response to seeing the vision | v. 8 My strength drained from me, and my vigor disappeared; I was without energy. I listened to his voice, and as I did so I fell into a trance-like sleep with my face to the ground. | v. 17 When I saw Him, I fell at His feet like a dead man. |
| spoken response | v. 10 Then behold, a hand touched me… v. 12 Then he said to me: “Do not be afraid…” v. 18-19 then this one with the human appearance touched me again and strengthened me. And he said: “Do not be afraid…” (NWT 1984 and 2013 have 3 xrefs in v. 10,12,19 to Rev 1:17.) | v. 17 And he laid his right hand upon me and said: “Do not be fearful…” |
In the NWT 1984 (Study Edition) has 7 cross references that leads readers to link Daniel 10:5-6 with
Rev 1:13-15. |
||
Rev 1:17-18 reveals the identity of the man in John’s vision, when he says: “Do not be afraid; I am the first and the last, and the living One; and I was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of death and of Hades.” It is the resurrected Christ. So, because of the number and similarity of the descriptions, we have strong evidence that it is one of the many appearances of the pre-incarnate Christ whom Daniel saw in his vision. There the speaker (we now know it is Jesus) refers to Michael in the third person who “came to help me” (v. 13) and “stands firmly with me” (v. 21). Then in Dan 12:1, Jesus again speaks about Michael in the third person. They are obviously not the same person. The NWT (1984 reference edition and 2013 online edition) itself uses cross-references in the Daniel passage to point to the verses in Revelation chapter 1. If it is granted that these passages in Daniel were spoken by the pre-incarnate Christ, then it proves that they are actually not the same person, but two separate individuals. End of story!
[It may be of interest to note that the identification of the man in Daniel’s vision as being Christ was already put forward in the 2nd century by Hippolytus here and here. ]
On 1Th 4:16
“For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trumpet of God.”
The natural reading of the preposition “with” means that Christ is accompanied by these things, not that they are attributes of His (cf. Matt 24:31 “He will send forth His angels with a great trumpet”). If descending from heaven with the voice of the archangel makes him an archangel, then descending with the trumpet of God makes him God’s trumpet. As a matter of fact, if you want to express something as being like something else, Greek normally uses two other words to accomplish that: “ομοιον” [homoion] meaning “like” (expressed as a simile). [See Matt 13:45: The kingdom of God is like…] The other “ως” [os] meaning “as” (expressed as a metaphor) [see Rev 1:13-16 in Greek]. These two forms are equally comparative in English, while the preposition “with” has the common meaning of “accompaniment.” This verse presents no problem whatsoever for the trinitarian position.
On Jude 1:9
This is the only verse that explicitly identifies Michael as being “the archangel.” The other verses either mention only his name or use the word “archangel.” However, this verse can never be used to support that Michael is Jesus because it tells us something very important about Michael’s position in relation to Satan. Notice that Michael “did not dare to pronounce against him a railing judgment, but said, “The Lord rebuke you.” Michael relied on the Lord’s authority, not his own, to drive Satan away. As a matter of fact, no angel ever rebuked Satan on his own authority. However, this can never be said about the Lord Jesus Christ. In Matt. 4 Christ rebukes Satan with his own authority. This clearly shows that even in his humble human state he had more authority than Michael the archangel ever had. This verse alone is enough to show that Michael and Jesus can never be the same person. The fact that the dispute was over the body of Moses has no bearing on the identity of Michael as is claimed in the Insight to the Scriptures book (q.v. Michael). This by no means establishes Michael as being the angel of the Lord who is referred to in Exodus and in various other places in the OT. The Angel of the Lord speaks with authority, is called Jehovah, Judge of the whole earth; things which are never said of any angel. This verse stands in stark contrast with the Angel of the Lord in another way. The WTBTS claims that the reason the Angel of the Lord can speak as God is because he is representing God. Here we see that Michael actually distinguishes himself from the Lord (Kurios) because he doesn’t invoke his own authority but the Lord’s.
Who is the “Lord,” whose authority Michael invokes? Is it the Father, or Jesus Christ? Well, Jude uses the word “Lord” 7x in his short epistle, 4 of which refer unquestionably to Christ. Another refers to the Lord leading the people out of Egypt, which could also be Christ. The next one refers to “The Lord came with many thousands of His holy ones.” This could easily be Christ as well. Thus, all the other references to “Lord” that Jude uses either do or could refer to Christ, making a strong case that in this reference Jude is also referring to Christ. Thus Michael uses Christ’s authority to rebuke the devil.
Jude 9 uses two words that are of interest in this discussion: judgement and rebuke. “But when Miʹcha·el the archangel had a difference with the Devil and was disputing about Moses’ body, he did not dare to bring a judgment (krisis) against him in abusive terms, but said: “May Jehovah rebuke (epitimao) you.” (NWT)
Here are their dictionary entries:
| judgment 2920 krisis κρισισ {kree’-sis}
perhaps a primitive word; TDNT - 3:941,469; n f AV - judgment 41, damnation 3, accusation 2, condemnation 2; 48 1) a separating, sundering, separation 1a) a trial, contest 2) selection 3) judgment 3a) opinion or decision given concerning anything 3a1) esp. concerning justice and injustice, right or wrong 3b) sentence of condemnation, damnatory judgment, condemnation and punishment 4) the college of judges (a tribunal of seven men in the several cities of Palestine; as distinguished from the Sanhedrin, which had its seat at Jerusalem) 5) right, justice |
rebuke 2008 epitimao επιτιμαο
{e-pee-tee-mah’-o} from 1909 and 5091; TDNT - 2:623,249; v AV - rebuke 24, charge 4, straightly charge 1; 29 1) to show honour to, to honour 2) to raise the price of 3) to adjudge, award, in the sense of merited penalty 4) to tax with fault, rate, chide, rebuke, reprove, censure severely 4a) to admonish or charge sharply |
Let’s look at some other passages which use these words.
| Judge κρισισ {kree’-sis} | Rebuke επιτιμαο {e-pee-tee-mah’-o} |
| Matt 12:18-21 Christ will announce judgment to the nations | Matt 17:18 Jesus rebukes demon |
| John 5:22 For the Father judges not anyone, but all judgment He has given to the Son. | Mark 1:25-27 Jesus rebukes unclean spirit |
| John 5:27 and he has given him authority to judge because he is the Son of Man. | Mark 9:25 Jesus rebukes unclean spirit |
| John 12:31 Now the judgment of the world is this: now the ruler of this world shall be cast out. | Luke 4:35,41 Jesus rebukes unclean demon(s) |
| John 16:8 And He (the Holy Spirit) when He comes, will convict the world concerning sin, righteousness and judgment. | Luke 9:42 Jesus rebukes the unclean demon (spirit) |
| Jude 8-9 … these men … defile the flesh, and reject authority, and revile angelic majesties. But Michael the archangel, when he disputed with the devil and argued about the body of Moses, did not dare pronounce against him a railing judgment, but said, “The Lord rebuke you.” | Jude 8-9 … these men … defile the flesh, and reject authority, and revile angelic majesties. But Michael the archangel, when he disputed with the devil and argued about the body of Moses, did not dare pronounce against him a railing judgment, but said, “The Lord rebuke you.” |
| 2 Peter 2:11 whereas angels who are greater in might and power do not bring a reviling judgment against them (i.e. men) before the Lord. | Mat 4:10 Then Jesus said to him, “Go, Satan!… |
| 1 Cor 6:3 Do you not know that we will judge angels? | |
| John 16:11 and concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world has been judged. |
On Rev 12:7
The fact that Michael has angels and fights with Satan the dragon is no evidence for equating him with Jesus. All this means is that Michael is a leader of some (maybe all) of God’s angels and was sent into battle against the dragon. Further, in the book of Revelation, both Jesus’ and Michael’s names occur and there is no hint that they are supposedly the same person. How could they be the same individual? (The name “Jesus” is mentioned 12x in Revelation.) As far as I know, the Watchtower has never tried to explain why one individual would have two personal names in this book.
General observations on comparing Jesus with Michael
It is strange that not a word is said in all of Scripture that Christ is an angel if he really is one. All of the books of the New Testament were penned after Christ’s ascension to heaven yet not once is the reader told that he should now be called Michael the archangel. If he is a created being, a mighty angel, then God would surely have revealed it clearly to avoid giving him worship that really does not belong to him. Yet the Bible calls Jesus “God” more times (14x) than it even mentions the words “Michael” or “the archangel” (6x). And it is in these verses discussed above that we should find the clearest and strongest statements regarding this supposed dual identity of Christ or Michael.
Let’s accept Christ’s own words at how he identifies himself to Paul and to John. This happened after his resurrection, which according to the WTBTS doctrine is when Christ had reverted back to his identity as Michael the archangel again. When Jesus appeared to Paul on the road to Damascus Jesus himself told Paul who he was: Acts 9:5 (WEB) He (Paul) said, “Who are you, Lord?” The Lord said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting.” Then when Ananias was sent to Paul because Christ spoke to him in a vision and said in: Acts 9:17 (NWT 2013) So Ananias went and entered the house, and he laid his hands on him and said: “Saul, brother, the Lord Jesus, who appeared to you on the road along which you were coming, has sent me so that you may recover sight and be filled with holy spirit.” Paul repeats the story of his encounter with the risen Christ twice to others in Acts 22:8; 26:15. Then Hebrews 13:8 tells us that Jesus does not change; he is the same yesterday, today and forever. Then in Revelation the risen Christ again identifies himself in Rev 22:16, saying: “I, Jesus…!” If he is actually Michael, he would be misleading us. Why?
If Jesus assumed the identity of Michael again after his resurrection, then why does no biblical writer use that name when referring to Christ? Instead we find complete consistency by all writers of the NT of using Christ’s earthly name even after he ascended into heaven and never once referring to him as Michael or equating them. The only sentence in which Jesus and the word “archangel” occur together does not equate them as being the same person.
The Bible states that Jesus is unique, not “one of the chief princes” (note the plural) of angels. It makes a clear distinction between Him and the angels. He has received a better name than the angels and receives their worship (Heb 1:3-6). Michael did not dare pronounce on his own authority, yet Jesus plainly says: “Be gone, Satan!” (Mat 4:10). Christ showed his personal, direct authority over the evil spirits many times (Mat 8:29ff; Mark 1:24-27; 3:11-12; Luke 4:41) something which no angel has been reported as having done.
Moreover, in Revelation, the resurrected Jesus is supposed to be Michael the archangel again. If the man “Jesus” is dead, forever dead, why is he still called a man in 1 Timothy 2:5? There he has the office of being a mediator between God and men, which he received after his death and resurrection (Heb 9:15). In Acts 17:31, he is called the Judge of all the world and also a man. Further, how can Michael and Jesus be the same if they are mentioned as separate persons in Daniel and Revelation? Why are two separate persons mentioned if they are really only one person? Does the same person go by two personal names? Never is any clue given that they should be considered as the same person. When Isaiah states the name of the child of the virgin who will come it is: “Immanuel,” which means “God with us” not “an angel with us.”
A quick analysis of Hebrews chapter 1‑2 shows that the writer makes a very clear distinction between Jesus and the angels (never the rest of the angels).
Heb 1:4 ‑ having become as much better than the angels (not: the rest of the angels).
Heb 1:5 ‑ For to which of the angels did he ever say. (rhetorical: implied is none of them).
Heb 1:6 ‑ Let all the angels. (not: let all the rest of the angels, or let all the other angels.)
Heb 1:7-8 ‑ And of the angels he says … But of the Son he says …
Heb 1:13 ‑ But to which of the angels has he ever said. (rhetorical: implied is none of them).
Heb 1:14 ‑ Are they not all ministering spirits? (rhetorical: implied is yes).
Heb 2:5 ‑ For He did not subject to angels the world to come. (but he did subject it to Christ)
Heb 2:7 ‑ Thou hast made him for a little while lower than the angels (not: hast made him the lowest of the angels, or lower than the rest of the angels)
On Heb 1:6 “Let all the angels of God worship Him.”
“All the angels” must include Michael, therefore Michael cannot be Jesus. The whole chapter of Hebrews 1 is a comparison between Jesus and angels; he has a more excellent name than they (Heb 1:4), “to which of the angels did He ever say” occurs 2x (Heb 1:5,13), angels are “all ministering spirits.” It is obvious that the writer of Hebrews sees Christ as the Creator and Sustainer of this world and uses OT passages that referred to Jehovah and applies them to Christ. This is never done with angels. Interestingly, this is one verse where the Watchtower has changed its position. Even in their first edition of the NWT this verse was spared the editing that was the fate of many other verses that give Christ his proper place in Scripture. The first edition of the NWT in 1951 read “Let all the angels of God worship Him”; later editions read “Let all the angels of God do obeisance to him.” In its earlier history the Watchtower had no qualms about “worshipping” Christ.
On Col 2:18 “Let no one keep defrauding you of your prize by … worshipping angels.”
The worship of angels is clearly prohibited, therefore Michael the archangel cannot receive any form of honor. The prize is Christ, in whom all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form (Col 2:9). Here again, there is a very clear distinction made between Christ and the angels. John the apostle almost made the mistake of giving honour to an angel and was corrected by him. The angel knew whom he was to worship: God (Rev 19:10; 22:9). No angel would ever worship another angel. Yet God commands his angels to worship the Son (Heb 1:6). In Rev 14:7 part of the eternal gospel is to “worship him who made the heavens and the earth …” This creator is Jesus Christ (John 1:3, 10; Col 1:16; 1 Cor 8:6; Eph 3:9; Heb 1:10-12; 11:3).
Conclusion
The verses most likely to show that Jesus is Michael the archangel must be those which actually mention either Michael or the archangel. But it is these very same verses that contain evidence that this claim cannot be true. This is a doctrine that was explicitly formulated in the 19th century by the Watchtower Organization to replace the doctrine that Jesus is God. Jehovah’s Witnesses believe the doctrine based on the Governing Body’s authority and eminence rather than the Biblical evidence. It can be supported only by giving JW’s a guided tour of scripture that carefully avoids the questions these verses raise and avoids any discussion of evidence that undermines the claim.
Finally, the most powerful argument that Jesus cannot be Michael the archangel, is because Scripture teaches that Jesus is not a created being, while Michael is.
