Tag Archives: Daniel

Who is Michael the Archangel? 

Who is Michael? Some individuals and groups (such as the Seventh-day Adventists and Jehovah’s Witnesses, and others) insist that Michael is Jesus. Though Michael has similarities with Jesus, Michael is not Jesus for the following reasons.

  • Some say Michael must be Jesus because he has his angels. But if Satan, a fallen angelic being, has his angels (Revelation 12:7), cannot Michael, an unfallen angelic being, have his angels?
  • Some say Michael must be Jesus, because his name means “who is like God” or One like God. But if this were a title of Jesus, it would argue against His deity, not for it because it would say that Jesus is like God, but not God. However, Jesus is God, and not just like God (John 1:1; Hebrews 1:8).
  • Some say Michael must be Jesus, because he is called the archangel (Jude 9), which means leader or prince among the angels, and they say that only Jesus is the leader of the angels. But we know from Daniel 10:13, 10:20 and 10:21 that Michael is “one of the chief princes”, meaning he is one among others. Jesus is not the foremost from a group of others. The Bible calls Jesus “King of Kings” and “Lord of Lords.” (Revelation 17:14; 19:16) This title indicates absolute sovereignty and authority and is a far cry from being a foremost prince who is one among a group of equals.
  • Paul refers to “a voice of an archangel” in 1 Thessalonians 4:16 in a way that presupposes other archangels. Translations like the ESV and NKJV uses “an archangel,” and others like the NASB put “the” in italics so that it is clear to the reader that the word is not in Greek.
  • Jesus is referred to as a “prince”, “the Son of God”, but so are angels referred to as “sons of God”, and Satan is referred as a “prince” (Ephesians 2:2). Yet this does not mean that Jesus, angels or Michael are the same in spite of similar titles. Jesus is more than a prince.
  • SDA theology presents Michael as the only archangel. However, Michael cannot be the only archangel, as Ellen White presents Satan as another archangel: “Rebellion originated with Satan. Notwithstanding the exalted position which he occupied among the heavenly host, he became dissatisfied because he was not accorded supreme honor. Hence he questioned God’s purposes and impugned his justice. He bent all his powers to allure the angels from their allegiance. The fact that he was an ARCHANGEL, glorious and powerful, enabled him to exert a mighty influence”. (source: https://m.egwwritings.org/it/book/820.4726#4738).
  • Ellen White says, “Christ as High Priest within the veil so immortalized Calvary, that though He liveth unto God, He dies continually to sin and thus if any man sin, he has an Advocate with the Father. He arose from the tomb enshrouded with a cloud of angels in wondrous power and glory,–the Deity and humanity combined. He took in His grasp the world over which Satan claimed to preside as his lawful territory, and by His wonderful work in giving His life, He restored the whole race omen to favor with God. The songs of triumph echoed and re-echoed through the worlds. Angel and archangel, cherubim and seraphim, sang the triumphant song at the amazing achievement.–Manuscript 50, 1900.  {7ABC 485.1}.
  • As per the above Ellen White statement, it would have been odd indeed that, if there is only one archangel, and he is none other than Christ himself, he would sing “the triumphant song” at his own “amazing achievement”.
  • Some say that Michael must be Jesus because Paul says that at the second coming, the Lord will call His people with the voice of an archangel and the trumpet of God (1 Thessalonians 4:16). But Jesus can use His voice as well as the voice of an archangel to call out for His people without being that angel, just as much as God can use a trumpet to sound out a call without being the trumpet.
  • Pre-incarnate Jesus appears in the Old Testament as “the Angel (Messenger) of the Lord”, and perhaps even as the “Captain of the Host” (Joshua 5:13-15), but none of those verses tell us that “the Angel of the Lord” is Michael.
  • In Zechariah 3:2, the Angel of the Lord (pre-incarnate Christ) defers the rebuking of Satan to God the Father. Similarly, Michael does the same in Jude 1:9. There is no necessity to conclude both are the same individuals, simply because Michael and Angel of the Lord defer their rebuking. Another time, Jesus rebuked the devil directly (Matthew 17:18).
  • The angel Michael is often associated with spiritual battle (Daniel 10:13, Daniel 10:21, Jude 1:9, and Revelation 12:7). Since Michael is called the archangel (Jude 1:9), he is Satan’s true opposite. Satan is not the opposite of Jesus; he is the opposite of Michael, this high-ranking angel.
  • Even if Michael, a very high-ranking angel, had certain similarities with Jesus, and did certain similar things, that does not make Jesus to be Michael. Michael is not to be identified with Christ, any more than any other of the great angels in the Bible. Such identification would confuse hopelessly the persons in the heavenly scene (Revelation 12).

See our Revelations commentary to learn more about Michael (see Chapter 12).

Truth about the Year-Day Principle

1) There are many instances in Bible prophecy where a day means a day and a year means a year. The Bible prophesied that Abraham’s children would be afflicted for 400 years (Gen 15:13) and that the Jews would be in captivity for 70 years (Daniel 9:1-2). Jonah prophesied Nineveh would be destroyed in 40 days (Jonah 3:4), which did not equate to 40 years. In Genesis 6:3 God prophesied there would be a period of 120 years before the flood, which did not equate to 43,200 years. Here, days are days and years are years. Then to apply a year-day principle is arbitrary.

2) Adventist and others primarily build the case for the year-day principle from Numbers 14:34 and Ezekiel 4:4. However, no year day prophetic principle is established in Numbers 14:34: 

In accordance with the number of days that you spied out the land, forty days, for every day you shall suffer the punishment for your guilt a year, that is, forty years, and you will know My opposition“. 

Numbers 14:34 deals with a divine sentence: just as you explored the land for 40 days and were unfaithful to me, now you will roam the desert for 40 years. There is no prophecy in this passage, or symbolic vision, or symbolic time period. Both data are literal spans of time.

3) The same is true in Ezekiel 4:4-5:

For I have assigned you a number of days corresponding to the years of their wrongdoing, 390 days; so you shall bear the wrongdoing of the house of Israel. After you have finished this, lie down again, this time on your right side, and bear the sin of the people of Judah. I have assigned you 40 days, a day for each year”. 

Again, there is no symbolic vision involved here, no symbolic time period, no prophecy. The relationship between the 390 days of witnessing by Ezekiel and the 390 years of Israel’s sin is typological/literal, not symbolic. One literal period stands as the literal type of the other: a period of sin by Israel is a type of God’s forbearance. The prophet’s lying down for 40 days is a type of Judah’s 40 years of transgression.

Don Neufeld, a theologian, and an associate editor for the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary wrote in Adventist Review:

“Some have felt that Num. 14:34 and Eze. 4:6 establish the year-day principle as needing to be applied to all time prophecies. But a careful examination of these passages shows that the principle is applied only to specific cases and that there is no general statement in these passages suggesting that a universal principle is set forth. In fact, Seventh-day Adventists do not apply the principle consistently to all time prophecies. For example, the length of the millennium is stated in Revelation 20:3, 5, 7 as being ―a thousand years. This is accepted literally. If the year-day principle were applied, the length would be 360, 000 years. (Source: This Generation Shall Not Pass, in Adventist Review, April 5, Washington D.C,: Review and Herald Publication Association, also quoted in Desmond Ford, Daniel 8:14: the Day of Atonement and the Investigative Judgment, Cassellbury, FL.: Euangelion Press, 1980, pp.85-87.)

Seventh-day Adventists do not apply the principle consistently! 

4) The “seventy weeks” of Daniel 9 cannot prove the year-day principle either, because the expression is actually “seventy ‘sevens“‘ (Dan. 9:24). We know that Daniel 9 is talking about “weeks of years,” not “weeks of days,” but this knowledge comes from the context.

5) The formula “a day for a year” was not used by the New Testament, nor by the early Christians. It was first suggested by a medieval Jewish scholar, and only later adopted by some Christian expositors. It reached its zenith of acceptability in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.

6) There is no way any sensible Christian who desire to handle Scriptures carefully could apply a day-year principle to Daniel 8:14, because in Daniel 8:14, the Hebrew for evening and mornings is ‘ereb-boqer’. It is not the usual Hebrew word, yom for day. So, where exactly is the biblical key that, in prophecy, “one evening plus one morning” equals one year rule? Don’t we, as creationists, insist that the presence of the words “evening and morning” in Genesis 1 implies 24-hour days? Who gave SDAs the right to use evening to morning = 1 year rule when God has not even specified such a rule? If God wanted to say 2300 years, he would have said it so like He does elsewhere in Bible prophecy. 

See also:

1) Our verse-by-verse complete Daniel Commentary

2) Our verse-by-verse complete Revelation Commentary

Commentary on the Book of Revelation

Check out our commentary on the Book of revelation

The compilation of this Revelation’s Commentary was an attempt to conduct a verse-by-verse exegesis of this inspired Book. The primary objective was to spiritually enrich my soul. Now I want to share this commentary with anyone who is passionate about deep diving into God’s word.