I have come across a statement which a 7th Day Adventist claims. They say Jesus and the Archangel Michael is one and the same person. Their reading is in Daniel and also revelation with the war in heaven, I think its chapter 12. I find this hard to believe.  What are your views in this?


No, Jesus is DEFINITELY not Michael.  I am a bit surprised to hear a 7th Day Adventist making this heretical claim.  This would be no surprise at all coming from a Jehovah’s Witness, as they believe that Jesus is not God, but a very high and powerful angel.  As far as I know the 7th Day Adventists as a group believe that Jesus is God/deity so the typical member of this group should not make such an outrageous claim.
Chapter 12 of Daniel is not good ground for teaching that Jesus is an angel.  It mentions "At that time, Michael, the great prince who protects your people, will arise."  If you read the book of Daniel in its context, "that time" is a reference to the time when God comes in judgment on the Greek persecutors of the church (see Daniel 11:35-45).  If you are having trouble understanding that this is the context, I suggest you get a copy of my book Daniel, Prophet to the Nations (
Now, I can see why a Bible student who is somewhat versed in Daniel who has not studied it deeply might make this mistake of interpretation.  Begining in Daniel 12:2, the last vision of Daniel shifts forward to the future–to the final resurrection.  It can be confusing to understand the shift of time frame between Daniel 11 and Daniel 12.
The context of Daniel 11and 12 does not support that Jesus in an angel.  I believe the evidence outside Daniel is much stronger against this heretical conclusion that Jesus is not God.  Hebrews 1:4-14 ought to settle this question.  "So he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs."  This entire section proves that Jesus is so vastly greater than the angels that there is really no comparison between him and the angels.  Hebrews 1:1-3 shows that Jesus is God.  No angel is "the radiance of God’s glory."  A general rule of Bible interpretation is that difficult passages ought to be interpreted in the light of clear and obvious passages of scripture.  In other words, even if one were to conclude that it is possible Daniel 12:1 implies Jesus is an angel, one is required to take the entire weight of scripture into account to ask if this really is a reasonable interpretation of this somewhat difficult passage.  The conclusion from the weight of scripture is that, even if one cannot say for sure just from Daniel 12, we can decide from the context of the entire Bible that this conclusion is certainly not a correct one.
There is no indication in Revelation 12 that Jesus is identified with Michael.  I see no basis whatsoever to use Revelation 12 to teach that Jesus is an angel.
John Oakes


Comments are closed.