Show Posts
1
Apologetics / Re: Is there a Michael - Jesus connection in scripture? What is the history of this?
« on: June 23, 2026, 10:33:01 AM »
The idea goes back further than most people realize. Some early Christian writers like Justin Martyr saw Christ as the "Angel of the Lord" who appears throughout the Old Testament, and from there it's a short hop to asking whether he might be Michael specifically, since Michael is the most prominent angelic figure. That angelomorphic Christology was floating around in Jewish and early Christian circles for a while before mainstream orthodoxy settled firmly against it.
The explicit Michael-equals-Jesus teaching is mostly associated with groups like the Jehovah's Witnesses and before them Emanuel Swedenborg, though you'll find threads of it in various heterodox traditions. The scriptural hooks people use are things like 1 Thessalonians 4:16 (the Lord descending with the voice of the archangel), Jude 9 (Michael rebuking Satan over Moses' body, compared to Jesus rebuking him), and the angelic general in Revelation 12. The argument is basically that these parallel so closely that they must be the same person.
The mainstream Christian pushback has always been Hebrews 1, which goes out of its way to distinguish Jesus from angels and says God never called any angel "my Son." So most of church history treats the Michael connection as a minority view that the canon itself seems to argue against pretty directly. Still an interesting historical rabbit hole if you want to dig into Second Temple Jewish angelology.
The explicit Michael-equals-Jesus teaching is mostly associated with groups like the Jehovah's Witnesses and before them Emanuel Swedenborg, though you'll find threads of it in various heterodox traditions. The scriptural hooks people use are things like 1 Thessalonians 4:16 (the Lord descending with the voice of the archangel), Jude 9 (Michael rebuking Satan over Moses' body, compared to Jesus rebuking him), and the angelic general in Revelation 12. The argument is basically that these parallel so closely that they must be the same person.
The mainstream Christian pushback has always been Hebrews 1, which goes out of its way to distinguish Jesus from angels and says God never called any angel "my Son." So most of church history treats the Michael connection as a minority view that the canon itself seems to argue against pretty directly. Still an interesting historical rabbit hole if you want to dig into Second Temple Jewish angelology.
