Printer-friendly version

Is Jesus Michael the Archangel?

Answers to Jehovah’s Witnesses #8

Summary: The Watchtower Society teaches that Jesus Christ is the same person that the Bible calls Michael the archangel. This identification is part of the Jehovah’s Witness doctrine that Christ is a created angel rather than God.

This article is one of a series of articles explaining in detail the doctrines of Jehovah’s Witnesses and showing why those teachings are not in harmony with the facts and teachings of the Bible. For an overview, see our article on what Jehovah’s Witnesses believe.

What the Watchtower Teaches

Jehovah’s Witnesses are taught that Jesus Christ is the same person as Michael the archangel. In their view, identifying Christ as Michael confirms their belief that Christ is not God and does not have the authority or deserve the same honors as God. For example, in an article published in 2010, the Watchtower magazine asked, “Is Jesus the Archangel Michael?” Here was the response:

Put simply, the answer is yes…. Jesus Christ is Michael the archangel…. 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.”1

This identification of Jesus as “Michael, the chief angel,” has practical ramifications for how one views Jesus or relates to him. The importance of the claim is illustrated by the following comments in the Watchtower in 2015:

The Bible writer Jude recorded an example from Jesus’ prehuman existence. (Read Jude 9.) As Michael the archangel, Jesus “had a difference with the Devil” and “was disputing” with that wicked one…. Yet, the Chief Angel recognized that it was not his place to bring judgment. Rather, he referred the case to the Supreme Judge, Jehovah. Michael thus refrained from overstepping his authority, even under provocation. What a humble attitude!2

Notice that the Watchtower Society argues here that Jesus Christ, as Michael, “refrained from overstepping his authority” because he was only “the Chief Angel” and that “it was not his place to bring judgment.” We have here the Jehovah’s Witness doctrine of the person of Christ in a nutshell: Jesus Christ was Michael, the chief angel, not God.

It should be noted that although the Watchtower interprets Jude 9 to mean that the prehuman Jesus was not authorized to judge Satan, the Society admits that Jesus has that authority now:

Now, in the Lord’s day, he no longer merely says to Satan: “May Jehovah rebuke you.” Since this is a time of judging, Jesus, as Michael, hurls the wicked Satan and his demonic angels down from heaven. (Jude 9; Revelation 1:10) It is most fitting that He should be the One to do this, as He is the newly installed King.3

Biblical Response

There are five references in the Bible to Michael (Dan. 10:13, 21; 12:1; Jude 9; Rev. 12:7), and in none of these passages is Jesus actually called Michael. The Watchtower Society has admitted that “there is no statement in the Bible that categorically identifies Michael the archangel as Jesus.”4 Nor does the Bible ever explicitly describe Jesus as an “archangel” (a word that appears in the canonical books of the Bible only twice, 1 Thess. 4:16; Jude 9) or as any other kind of angel. This puts the burden of proof on the Jehovah’s Witness to explain why they believe that Jesus is Michael. By way of contrast, the New Testament repeatedly refers to Jesus explicitly as “God”—yet the Watchtower Society goes out of its way to argue that he is not God! Here are some of the clearest statements on this point5:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God (John 1:1).
Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!” (John 20:28).
…waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ (Titus 2:13).
But of the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom” (Heb. 1:8).
Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ (2 Peter 1:1).

Since there is no comparable statement in the Bible that calls Jesus Michael or gives him the title archangel, the Watchtower offers “Scriptural reasons for drawing that conclusion.”6 We will consider each of these arguments one by one.

People could have two names.

The Watchtower argues that Jesus might also have the name Michael since human beings in the Bible sometimes have two names. One example they mention is Jacob, also called Israel (Gen. 35:10; 49:1-2). They also point out that Simon is called Peter and other forms of these names, Simeon and Cephas, the Aramaic equivalent to Peter (Matthew 10:2; 16:16; John 1:42; Acts 15:7, 14).7

These examples are not relevant to the question of Jesus’ supposed identity with Michael. In both instances a man is given a new name to express a change in his relationship with God. Thus Jacob was renamed Israel after wrestling with a mysterious figure who seems to have been God or a messenger representing God (Gen. 32:28). Jesus gave the name Peter to Simon after Simon had acknowledged that Jesus was the Messiah (Matt. 16:18; Mark 3:16).

Jews in the first century sometimes had two names because they lived in two cultures, the Jewish culture and the Greco-Roman civilization. For example, Saul of Tarsus had not only his Hebrew name Saul (after the first king of Israel) but also the Roman name Paul (Acts 13:9).

In all of these instances, the Bible explicitly states that the two names belonged to the same individual; there is no need for guesswork. It is surely hazardous to base a doctrine on the possibility that the two names Jesus and Michael might belong to the same person without some statement to that effect.

Archangel means “chief angel.”

According to the Watchtower Society, “The prefix ‘arch,’ meaning ‘chief’ or ‘principal,’ implies that there is only one archangel, the chief angel.”8 On the premise that Christ was originally an angel created by God before everything else, Jehovah’s Witnesses conclude that he must be the chief angel and hence Michael.

Essentially, this is an argument from the etymology, or root elements of the word. Biblical scholars have been warning for decades that such appeals to the etymological forms of a word to determine its meaning are often erroneous.9 In this particular case, there are compelling reasons to reject the Watchtower’s argument.

First of all, some compound nouns using arch- are used in the Bible in plural forms to refer to a group of individuals, such as “chief priests” (archiereis, occurring 50 times in the New Testament, e.g., Matt. 2:4; Mark 14:53, 55; Luke 19:47; John 19:6) or “chief bodyguards” (archisōmatophylakes, Esther 2:21, LXX). When used as a part of titles such as these, the prefix arch- simply indicates that those who hold this title occupy a higher position than others. It tells us nothing about whether that title is held by one individual or more than one.

Second, if the word archangel by definition could refer to only one individual, then we would expect to find it always used in this way in ancient literature. To the contrary, ancient Jewish texts commonly speak of a group of archangels, either four or seven. Speaking of the Jewish apocalyptic literature that was part of the culture of the New Testament writers (such as the books attributed to Enoch and Baruch), Darrell Hannah observes:

The authors of the apocalypses often assert that the angels are organized into a hierarchy (2En. 19.3; 1En. 61.10; 2Bar. 59.11). This often includes a belief in a small group of especially privileged archangels, or angels of the Presence, who stand before God and have responsibility over the hosts of lesser angels (Tobit 12.15; Jub. 2.2). The number of this, the highest rank of angels, is in some documents four and in others seven.10

Michael, Sariel (or Uriel), Raphael, and Gabriel are the usual four archangels; in lists of seven archangels, Sariel and Uriel are treated separately and the names Raguel and Remiel are added.11

The point here is not that these Jewish apocalyptic texts carry any divine authority as inspired Scripture. The issue here is lexical—what the word meant—not theological. Perhaps there is only one archangel, or four, or seven, or a hundred. The Bible does not say explicitly how many there are. The word “archangel” does not answer this question.

Michael is called the archangel (Jude 9), indicating that he is the only one.

Jehovah’s Witnesses often appeal to the use of the Greek article (translated “the”) in theological arguments. Such arguments need to be considered very cautiously, as it is easy to make mistakes. Here the Watchtower argues that since Michael is called “the archangel” in Jude 9 “This suggests that there is only one such angel.”12 This inference is fallacious. The expression “Michael the archangel” is similar to the expression “the angel Gabriel” (Luke 1:26), which of course does not mean that Gabriel was the only angel. Grammatically, the article in these instances functions the same way as in such expressions as “Nathan the prophet” (2 Sam. 7:2, etc.) or “David the king” (1 Chron. 29:1, 9). The article tells us nothing whatsoever as to whether Michael was the only archangel.

There are no references in the Bible to archangels in the plural.

The Watchtower Society has repeatedly pointed out that the term archangel “occurs in the Bible only in the singular, never in the plural.”13 This sounds like an impressive point until one considers the fact that the word archangel occurs only twice in the whole Bible (1 Thess. 4:16; Jude 9)!

Other words appear in the Bible that happen for whatever reason to occur only in the singular form, but that could have been used in a plural form in reference to more than one person or thing. A particularly relevant example is the word “chief tax collector” (architelōnēs, Luke 19:2). The standard lexical reference work by Louw and Nida explains this term to mean “chief tax collector, in the sense of one who controlled activities of certain other tax collectors—‘chief tax collector, director of tax collectors.’ …It is also possible to understand ἀρχιτελώνης as meaning a principal or important tax collector rather than one who controlled the activities of other tax collectors.”14 Zacchaeus was obviously not the head of tax collection for the entire Roman army, but just for his territory or region. So here we have another noun with the prefix arch- (“chief”) that can refer to more than one individual (in this case a group of principal or supervisor tax collectors); perhaps we could translate the term “senior tax collector.” The word just so happens to occur only one time in the Bible and in the singular.

Likewise, from the fact that the word archangel occurs only as a singular in the Bible, we cannot reasonably infer that there can be only one archangel. This is a hasty generalization (since the word only occurs twice) and is proven to be mistaken reasoning from the fact that other words occur only as singular forms but that could be used as plurals.

Although no other angel is explicitly called an archangel, Luke’s account of Gabriel’s visitation to Mary reflects the conventional ancient Jewish view that Gabriel was one of the archangels. Gabriel tells Mary, “I am Gabriel, who stands in the presence of God” (Luke 1:19 NASB). This statement closely parallels Michael’s statement “I am Michael…who stands in the presence of God” in the Jewish text called the Testament of Abraham.15 The traditional Jewish belief in seven archangels is very likely also reflected in the statement in Revelation 8:2, “Then I saw the seven angels who stand before God” (see also Rev. 8:6; 15:1, 6-8; 16:1; 17:1; 21:9).

Daniel predicts that Michael will be the king at the time of the end (Dan. 12:1).

The Watchtower argues that when Daniel speaks of Michael “standing up” as “the great prince,” this prophecy corresponds to what the New Testament reveals Christ will do as God’s appointed king:

Daniel, after making the first reference to Michael (Da 10:13), recorded a prophecy reaching down to “the time of the end” (Da 11:40) and then stated: “And during that time Michael will stand up, the great prince who is standing in behalf of the sons of [Daniel’s] people.” (Da 12:1) Michael’s ‘standing up’ was to be associated with “a time of distress such as has not been made to occur since there came to be a nation until that time.” (Da 12:1) In Daniel’s prophecy, ‘standing up’ frequently refers to the action of a king, either taking up his royal power or acting effectively in his capacity as king. (Da 11:2-4, 7, 16b, 20, 21) This supports the conclusion that Michael is Jesus Christ, since Jesus is Jehovah’s appointed King, commissioned to destroy all the nations at Har–Magedon.—Re 11:15; 16:14-16.16

The Watchtower’s reasoning here glosses over the way Michael is introduced in the book of Daniel. After three weeks of fasting in mourning, Daniel had a vision of a supernatural being (Dan. 10:5-6) who spoke to him (10:9). The being urged Daniel not to fear and told him,

“The prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me twenty-one days, but Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, for I was left there with the kings of Persia…. But now I will return to fight against the prince of Persia; and when I go out, behold, the prince of Greece will come. But I will tell you what is inscribed in the book of truth: there is none who contends by my side against these except Michael, your prince” (Dan. 10:13, 20-21).

In this passage, Michael is the prince of Israel or of the Jewish nation, comparable to other supernatural beings that were the princes of Persia and Greece. Michael was not the only being of his kind, but is specifically said to have been “one of the chief princes” (10:13). This statement—the first reference to Michael in the Bible—immediately establishes him as one of a class of supernatural beings. He clearly cannot be the person later called Jesus Christ, not even in Watchtower theology, which while viewing him as a creature places him in a category of his own as the only creature made directly by God.

It is true that in the near context of Daniel’s reference to Michael “standing” or “rising,” Daniel also refers to earthly kings as doing the same thing. However, these parallels are consistent with the statement in Daniel 10:13 that Michael was “one of the chief princes.” As a royal figure himself, albeit a supernatural one, he also would “arise” in support of the Jewish nation.

Jesus has the voice of an archangel (1 Thess. 4:16).

Paul told the Thessalonian Christians that when Christ returned, “the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God” (1 Thess. 4:16 ESV). According to the Watchtower magazine, “Jesus Christ himself is here identified as the archangel, or chief angel.”17 In other places the Watchtower has explained that Paul’s statement identifies Jesus as the archangel because Jesus’ voice “is described as being that of an archangel.”18 After all, “It is reasonable to conclude that only an archangel would call ‘with an archangel’s voice.’”19 “In the Society’s most detailed defense of their doctrine that Jesus is Michael, they offer the following reasoning as further support:

This text depicts him as descending from heaven with “a commanding call.” It is only logical, therefore, that the voice expressing this commanding call be described by a word that would not diminish or detract from the great authority that Christ Jesus now has as King of kings and Lord of lords. (Mt 28:18; Re 17:14) If the designation “archangel” applied, not to Jesus Christ, but to other angels, then the reference to “an archangel’s voice” would not be appropriate. In that case it would be describing a voice of lesser authority than that of the Son of God.20

This plausible-sounding interpretation is mistaken for several reasons.

First of all, Paul’s statement would be a very strange way of speaking if Jesus was an archangel. It would be like someone saying that when Abraham Lincoln went to Gettysburg, he went with the voice of a man—meaning his own voice. Consider two scenarios, both of them assuming for the sake of argument that Paul’s statement meant that Jesus was an archangel. First, imagine that Paul’s readers already believed that Jesus is an archangel (and if that was Paul’s view, one would think he would have taught it to the Thessalonians when he was there). If that were the case, when they read his statement in 1 Thessalonians 4:16, their reaction would have been, “Well, of course he had the voice of an archangel! What other voice would an archangel have?” Second, imagine that Paul’s readers were not familiar with the idea that Jesus was an archangel. If that had been the case, their reaction would have been, “Wait—are you saying that Jesus is an archangel? We never heard that before!” Either way, Paul’s statement would have struck them as exceedingly odd. If he wanted the Thessalonians to learn that Jesus was an archangel, he went about it in a very peculiar way; and if he had already taught them that Jesus was an archangel, saying that Jesus was coming “with an archangel’s voice” would also be odd. The fact is that the text makes much better sense in context when we recognize that Paul is not speaking of Christ as an archangel.

For another thing, it is at best unclear that in Paul’s statement we should equate the “shout” or “cry of command” with the “voice of an archangel.” There are three prepositional phrases here, all beginning with the preposition en (“in,” “with”): 

            en keleusmati                          “with a commanding cry”
            en phōnē archangelou              “with the voice of the archangel”
            en salpingi theou                     “with the trumpet of God”

The most natural way to understand these three phrases is to take them as referring to three distinct sounds: a commanding cry, the voice of an archangel, and the blast of a trumpet of God. Two pieces of evidence in the text support this conclusion. The first is that all three sounds, as just pointed out, are described in their own preposition phrases, each beginning with en (“with”). The second reason is that the sources of the second and third sounds are defined (“with the voice of an archangel and with the trumpet of God”) but the first sound (“with a commanding cry”) is not. This difference is best explained as due to the fact that Paul has already identified the source of the “commanding cry” to be “the Lord.” Very likely, then, the “Lord” gives the “commanding cry,” which is joined by the shout of an archangel and the blast of God’s trumpet.21 If this is correct, the “commanding cry” is not given by the archangel at all.22

On the other hand, suppose we interpret the three phrases as all referring to sounds made by the archangel. On this view, Paul means that the archangel will give a commanding cry, shouting with his own voice, and blasting the trumpet of God for good measure. If this way of reading the text is correct, then the archangel does give the “commanding cry.” But would this mean that the archangel is Jesus Christ?

Not at all. In the Bible, an angel’s main function is to speak on God’s behalf. The very term “angel” (Greek angelos) means a messenger. So there would certainly be nothing inappropriate about an archangel delivering a commanding message on behalf of the Lord. For example, in more than one place in the Book of Revelation, as Pauline scholar Abraham Malherbe noted, “an angel speaks for God in a loud voice”23 (Rev. 5:2; 7:2; 10:1-3; 14:6-7, 9, 15, 18; 16:17; 19:17).

Either way, the text simply does not equate Christ with the archangel. Indeed, Paul refers to Jesus Christ not as an archangel but as “the Lord” who “will descend from heaven.” This language clearly echoes texts in the Old Testament in which “the LORD,” that is, Jehovah (YHWH), came down or descended to meet his people. Easily the best known of these is the account of the LORD descending to Mount Sinai to meet Moses. Here is a literal translation of the passage in the Greek Septuagint:

For on the third day the LORD will come down [katabēsetai kurios] upon Mount Sinai in the sight of all the people…. And it came to be the third day toward dawn; and sounds [phōnai] and lightnings and a dark cloud came to be on the mountain, and a loud sound of the trumpet [phōnē tēs salpingos mega] was blasting, and all the people in the camp were terrified…. Now the whole Mount Sinai was smoking because God had come down [katabebēkevai] upon it in fire…. Now the sounds of the trumpet [hai phōnai tēs salpingos] advancing became much louder. Moses was speaking and God answered him with a sound [phōnē]. Now the LORD came down [katabē de kurios] upon Mount Sinai, upon the top of the mountain. And the LORD called Moses upon the top of the mountain, and Moses went up (Exod. 19:11, 16, 18a, 19-20).

In this passage, as in 1 Thessalonians, the people are told that “the LORD will come down” heralded in advance by loud noises or “sounds” including that of the “trumpet.” The Greek words for “Lord” (kurios), “come down” (katabēsetai and other forms), “sound” (phōnē), and “trumpet” (salpingos), which all appear repeatedly in the Septuagint in Exodus 19:11-20, are the same as the key Greek words in 1 Thessalonians 4:16. Of course, in Exodus 19 it is Yahweh (Jehovah), the LORD, who descends to meet his people (with Moses serving as their representative).

Another Old Testament passage to which 1 Thessalonians 4:16 likely alludes is Psalm 47:5, which in the Septuagint is Psalm 46:6. Compare the second line of this verse with 1 Thessalonians 4:16 as follows:

God went up with a shout,
The Lord with the sound of a trumpet [kurios en phōnē salpingos] (Ps. 46:6 LXX).
Because the Lord himself with a cry of command, with the sound of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God, will come down” (1 Thess. 4:16).

The main difference here is that in the Psalm the Lord is pictured as going up rather than as going down or descending; probably the language is a way of saying that God has gone with the Israelites up to Mount Zion, from where David and his descendants reigned. Since Paul and the other New Testament writers all viewed Jesus as the Davidic Messiah who had “gone up” or ascended into heaven to rule (e.g., John 20:17; Acts 1:9-11; 2:33-36; Rom. 8:34; Eph. 1:20-23; 4:8-10; Col. 3:1; Heb. 1:3, 13; 1 Peter 3:22), it would be natural for them to apply the language of Psalms in the Davidic tradition to Jesus.24 The physical imagery is similar to the account of David bringing the ark, which represented God’s presence, up to Jerusalem with “the sound of the trumpet” (phōnēs salpingos, 2 Sam. 6:15; similarly 1 Chron. 15:28). Notice again that in Psalm 47:5 (46:6 LXX) it is the LORD, Jehovah, whose coming to reign is heralded by a loud trumpet sound.25 As Jeffrey Weima comments:

The trumpet in the OT, as in the ancient world generally, functioned primarily not as a musical instrument but rather as a signal, marking in particular the visible appearance of God not only in the past (Exod. 19:13, 16, 19; 20:18), but especially at the future day of the Lord (Isa. 27:13; Joel 2:1; Zeph. 1:14-16; Zech. 9:14).26

In the context of Paul’s scriptural sources of religious themes and imagery, his reference to Jesus as the “Lord” who “will come down” clearly reflects an important Old Testament motif of the LORD God coming down to his people as their divine king. This means that the archangel is to be understood as heralding the coming of the Lord Jesus. In the cultural setting of Paul’s epistles, his imagery pictures an archangel as an authoritative representative of the divine king coming down ahead of the Lord, heralding his imminent arrival. As New Testament scholar Ben Witherington points out, “a royal visit to a city would be announced by a herald (see Ps. 24.7-10) and might well also be announced by a trumpet blast to alert those in the city that the king was coming.”27 Thus, the archangel’s voice functions as that of the herald coming in advance of the king and should not be confused with the voice of the king himself.

In short, a close reading of 1 Thessalonians 4:16 in its historical and cultural context shows that Paul distinguishes between Jesus, who is the divine, royal Lord, and the archangel who will come ahead of the Lord Jesus to herald his coming.

Michael (in Revelation 12:7) and Jesus are both identified as the leader of an army of angels.

The Book of Revelation contains a vision in which John says, “Now war arose in heaven, Michael and his angels fighting against the dragon” (Rev. 12:7). Jehovah’s Witnesses note that this statement refers to “Michael and his angels,” while elsewhere the New Testament speaks of Christ and “his angels” (Matt. 13:41; 16:27; 24:31; Mark 13:27; 2 Thess. 1:7). Later in the Book of Revelation, John describes a vision in which Christ, called “the Word of God,” leads “the armies of heaven” (Rev. 19:13-14). The Watchtower argues, “Since God’s Word nowhere indicates that there are two armies of faithful angels in heaven—one headed by Michael and one headed by Jesus—it is logical to conclude that Michael is none other than Jesus Christ in his heavenly role.”28

This argument, if pursued consistently, would “prove” that Christ is not only Michael the archangel but also God the Father, since the New Testament also refers to the angels as God’s angels or the Father’s angels (Matt. 4:6; 22:30; 26:53; Luke 4:10; 12:8-9; 15:10; John 1:51; Heb. 1:6; Rev. 3:5). Since Jesus is not the Father, there is something wrong with this reasoning.

We should not understand the Bible to be saying that there are two separate armies of angels, one headed by Christ and the other by Michael, nor that the one army of angels is headed by Christ who is Michael. Rather, evidently Michael leads the army of angels in Revelation 12:7 on behalf of Christ, who is his superior. Just as we might speak of the president’s army and also refer to it as a general’s army without identifying the general as the president, the New Testament speaks of Christ’s angels and also of Michael’s angels without identifying Christ as Michael.

In Revelation 12, Michael and his angels are fighting the “great red dragon,” which represents Satan the devil, in a “war in heaven” after Jesus Christ was born on earth as “the Lamb,” shed his “blood” to conquer the devil, and ascended to God and his throne (Rev. 12:3-11). Far from identifying Christ as Michael, this passage pictures Christ sharing God’s throne and ruling with him while Michael and his angels throw the devil and his angels down to the earth. Later in Revelation, Christ is described in another vision as the Word [Logos] of God leading the armies of heaven against the beast and his forces on earth (Rev. 19:11-21). This vision represents a later stage in Christ’s victory over sin in which he will bring judgment on the wicked who were inspired by the devil after his fall to the earth in Revelation 12. “The victory which Michael achieves only expels Satan from heaven, the victory of the Logos will end Satan’s threat forever…. His victory over the dragon in Revelation is limited and dependent upon the victory of Christ achieved on the Cross.”29 Reading Revelation 12:7 in the context of the whole book of Revelation, then, makes it quite clear that Michael is not Christ.

There are of course similarities between Michael and Christ in the Bible. Both are supernatural beings, both lead angelic armies, both fight on behalf of God’s people, and both have close access to the presence of God. On the other hand, the New Testament never identifies Jesus Christ as Michael, as an archangel, or as an angel at all. Rather, in various ways, the New Testament exalts Christ above the angels as their divine Lord. This point is developed in great detail in Hebrews 1–2, in which the divine Son is contrasted in terms of his titles and roles with the angels. The question, “To which of the angels did he ever say…?” (Heb. 1:5, 13) is a rhetorical question to which the understood answer is, “None.” The Son is not one of the angels, but is instead worshiped by them (Heb. 1:6) and identified as “God” and “Lord” (1:8, 10).



1. “Is Jesus the Archangel Michael?” Watchtower, 1 April 2010, 19.

2. “Imitate Jesus’ Humility and Tenderness,” Watchtower, 15 Feb. 2015, 6, repeated in Examining the Scriptures, March 2016, 27. The same point was made in “Honor the Son, Jehovah’s Chief Agent,” Watchtower, 1 Feb. 1991, 17.

3. Revelation—Its Grand Climax at Hand! (Watchtower, 1988), 181.

4. “Who Is Michael the Archangel?” Awake!, 8 Feb. 2002, 16.

5. All biblical quotations here are from the ESV. For a discussion of the translation and interpretation of these verses, see Robert M. Bowman Jr. and J. Ed Komoszewski, Putting Jesus in His Place: The Case for the Deity of Christ (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007), 138–56.

6. What Does the Bible Really Teach? (Watchtower, 2005), 218.

7. Ibid., 218; “Is Jesus the Archangel Michael?” Watchtower, 1 April 2010, 19.

8. “Archangel,” in Insight on the Scriptures (Watchtower, 1988), 1:156; verbatim in “Honor the Son, Jehovah’s Chief Agent,” 17; see also “Who Is Michael the Archangel,” 16; “Is Jesus the Archangel Michael,” 19.

9. E.g., D. A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996), 28–33; Grant R. Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, rev. and expanded ed. (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2006), 84–89.

10. Darrell D. Hannah, Michael and Christ: Michael Traditions and Angel Christology in Early Christianity, WUNT 2/109 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999), 29.

11. Ibid.

12. What Does the Bible Really Teach, 218.

13. Ibid.; so also “Who Is Michael the Archangel,” 17; “Is Jesus the Archangel Michael,” 19; “Michael,” in Insight on the Scriptures, 2:393.

14. Johannes P. Louw and Eugene A. Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains, 2nd ed. (New York: United Bible Societies, 1989), §57.185 (1:579).

15. Testament of Abraham (A) 7.11, quoted in Hannah, Michael and Christ, 123 n. 4. The Greek words here are exactly the same as in Luke 1:19 except for the name Michael rather than Gabriel. This Jewish work was probably written in the first century AD and thus was roughly contemporaneous with the New Testament writings. Although it is a highly fanciful story, the book illustrates that Gabriel’s self-description in Luke 1:19 reflected conventional Jewish understanding of the archangels.

16. “Michael,” in Insight on the Scriptures, 2:394.

17. “Is Jesus the Archangel Michael,” 19.

18. “Michael,” in Insight on the Scriptures, 2:393–94; What Does the Bible Really Teach, 218.

19. “Who Is Michael the Archangel,” 17.

20. “Michael,” in Insight on the Scriptures, 2:393–94. The same argument appeared a few years later in Reasoning from the Scriptures (Watchtower, 1995), 218.

21. Several exegetical commentaries discuss this question, e.g., Charles A. Wanamaker, The Epistles to the Thessalonians: A Commentary on the Greek Text, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 173, who supports the interpretation favored here.

22. As several commentators have suggested, Paul’s idea here may have been similar to the statement made by Jesus in John 5:28-29 that the dead were going to hear the voice of the Son of God and be raised from the dead.

23. Abraham J. Malherbe, The Letters to the Thessalonians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, Anchor Bible 32B (New York: Doubleday, 2000), 274.

24. See C. F. D. Moule, The Origin of Christology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977), 42; Craig A. Evans, “Ascending and Descending with a Shout: Psalm 47.6 and 1 Thessalonians 4.16,” in Paul and the Scriptures of Israel, edited by Craig A. Evans and James A. Sanders, Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement 83 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993), 238–53, followed by Gordon D. Fee, Pauline Christology: An Exegetical-Theological Study (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2007), 44–45.

25. There are yet other references in the OT to the Lord “coming down” (Psa. 144:5; Isa. 31:4; Micah 1:3), though these are not clear or rich sources of allusions in 1 Thessalonians 4:16.

26. Jeffrey A. D. Weima, “1–2 Thessalonians,” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, edited by G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 80.

27. Ben Witherington III, 1 and 2 Thessalonians: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 138.

28. What Does the Bible Really Teach, 219; see also “Michael,” in Insight on the Scriptures, 2:394.

29. Hannah, Michael and Christ, 128, 136-37.