HomeFeatureMichael, My Savior and Rescuer    


Michael, My Savior and Rescuer — 39 Comments

  1. I have been well enlightened by this, may the good Lord continue to give you more knowledge and revelations, I was really blessed by this.

  2. Excellent, clear study on a difficult topic. I appreciated and looked up all the references and like how you tied together the different ideas. It is particularly helpful for giving a sermon on Revelation 12.

    I especially liked how you started the post with the idea that in Daniel’s time of need God demonstrated His love by rescuing Daniel Himself.

    Then at the end of the post, stating, "Michael, the Son of God Himself will come to our rescue...in my time of need, when I feel I am being overcome by Satan, I can cry out God, “Please send Michael!” And Michael, the Only one “like Unto God,” Yes God Himself will rescue me!"

    What a comfort you give us by sharing the meaning of these scriptures and also applying the meaning to our daily lives. We can actually see how God is with us and working for us. Thank you very much!

    • Woo-hoo what a wonderful story and powerful truth. I really needed this story for me and my family. Yes..thank you as and praise the Lord.

  3. What a wonderful insight!!. I'm blessed by this study and now know that amidst the fiercest spiritual battle, there's one in control who'll never leave us but fight for our victory. William, at what times does Jesus take the angelic titles? I ask this in respect to varied situations in the Bible where angels sent on different missions assume different titles.

    • Since Michael is ONE of the Chief Princes, there are other beings that hold equal status with Son of God, CHRIST?

      • Keep in mind who is speaking in this verse (Daniel 10:13). It is Gabriel, now the highest of all creatures since the fall of Lucifer from that position. Only God (all 3 persons) is above Gabriel, so when He says Michael came to his aid, it places Michael in the superior position, and Gabriel calls Michael:

        "one" (echad: united, equal, alike, first, etc) of the

        "chief"(rishon: first in place, time or rank; before time; beginning; of old time past)

        "princes" (sar: head person of any rank; master; principal ruler, etc)

        Gabriel is clearly saying that Michael is a member of the sovereign Godhead. There can be no other conclusion given the circumstances of Gabriel's position in God's government, and being the closest to the Godhead of all other creatures. Only the Godhead are "echad" (united, equal, alike, first) and above Gabriel in the heavenly government according to scripture.

        • In Dan10 we see the interplay of spiritual forces. The Prince of Persia and the Prince of Greece are Satan’s *guardian angels* of those nations. Michael is God’s *guardian angel* of Israel, Prince of Israel. He had to assist the unidentified angel against Satan’s angelic Prince of Persia, finally convincing the King of Persia to restore Israel to their homeland. The unidentified man in linen in Daniel’s vision sure resembles Christ of Rev 1. Is this the same man in Dan 8 who directed Gabriel to give Daniel understanding of the vision? He wasn’t Michael.
          In Dan 8:11,25 Christ is identified as the Commander of the host and PRINCE of Princes.
          Gabriel gives messages and understanding; Michael is warrior Prince.
          Robert, you are pretty confident about your estimation of the angelic offices. Michael came to the assistance of the angel as a superior being? They each had different functions.

      • The name "Michael" is most consistently applied to Jesus as the leader of the angelic forces in the battle against Satan.
        It's the battle between Christ and His angels, and Satan and His angels.

        Daniel 10 -- Michael comes to the aid of Gabriel in resisting the forces of evil in Persia

        Daniel 12 -- Michael stands up to deliver His people at a time when it seems like the forces of evil are about to conquer the world.

        Jude 1 -- Michael the archangel, contends with Satan over the resurrection of Moses.
        1 Thess. 4 The voice of the archangel delivers the saints from the prison house of death.

        Revelation 12 sums it up --And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,

        The phrase "one of the chief princes" (Dan. 10:13) could give the impression that He is one among many princes. But according to Revelation 12:7, Michael is the supreme leader of the heavenly angels, and Daniel 12 calls Him "the great prince."

        Christ is KING of kings,
        He is LORD of lords,
        He is the PRINCE of princes
        The ARCANGEL of angels.

        No one else but Jesus Christ stands for us and totally defeats the forces of evil. Praise the Lord for His Truth is truth! And His name is Michael, as the LEADER of the angelic hosts fighting against satan and his angels.

        "They (satan's agents) shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful." Rev. 17:14

        And Rev. 19 shows the LEADER of the angelic hosts (the King of kings and Lord of lords) riding forth with the angelic army to deliver His people from the forces of evil.

        • Thank you for this explanation Ulicia, and for reminding me, it was Gabriel not Daniel who Michael came to rescue all though in the end Daniel and all the Jews were rescued and could go back to Jerusalem.

        • Maybe we can identify the respective locations of Christ and Michael when the great battle was fought that " cast out Satan".

          • Kenny, the answer is found in John 12:31. What led to satan being cast out of heaven was Jesus' death on the cross. This is how the war in heaven was fought, as Jesus came to the very house of the "strong man"(Matt 12:29) and gained the mighty victory for us and all creation.

            Keep in mind that the great controversy is between Christ and Satan, so how does that affect the reading of Revelation 12:7?

            Michael is Jesus prior to His earthly incarnation as a man. There is no 4th person of the Godhead, and Gabriel clearly refers to Michael as "one of the Chief Heads, from his perspective as the one standing in the presence of God(Luke 1:19), with no other creature higher than himself. The only "chief heads" above Gabriel is the Godhead, and Michael, according to Gabriel, is "one" of them.

  4. Here is another text that the Lord led me too just now at 12:22 am. Ephesians 3:9
    and to make all see what is the fellowship[a] of the mystery, which from the beginning of the ages has been hidden in God who created all things through Jesus Christ.

  5. Oh my dear brother, thank you so much. Indeed, "flesh and blood hath not revealed this". I have wrestled with this question for years. Now I finally get it. It is so reassuring to know that the Bible does interpret itself and we must approach its study with humility realizing that a lack of understanding is no fault of the book but of the human, finite mind trying to wrest eternal things. I am always so very humbled when God finally reveals to me answers to Biblical questions that I have struggled with. Again, thanks for sharing.

  6. I'm a little confused here.
    I am who I am.
    The Alpha and the Omega. ~~
    If you have seen me you have seen the Father. ~~
    Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, and serve him, and shalt swear by his name.
    Deuteronomy 6:13 (KJV)~~
    For there is no other name...
    Acts 4:12

    • Hi Rudy. One analogy that helped me to understand the situation with Michael and Jesus being the same person is this. All US presidents are "commanders in Chief" of the US military, correct? The same could well be said of Jesus, who we also know as the Lord of Hosts, the Commander in Chief of the heavenly forces, the angelic 'host'. However, just as the US president doesn't need to be a soldier, a sailor or an airman in order to be the Commander, so also it doesn't necessarily mean that the archangel is an actual angel.
      Michael is merely the OT name that our Savior was known by. There is even a powerful Jewish tradition that teaches that Michael was, throughout OT times, Israel's advocate and intercessor. It is of great interest to note that all the times where Jewish scholars refer to Michael as accomplishing certain acts in the OT (such as wrestling with Jacob) Christians attribute the same to Jesus.
      This is of interest...http://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/10779-michael

    • Rudy I agree with you on this. There is more than enough evidence to the contrary that Jesus was the Son Of God. I always beg the question, if Jesus was God, and God was then on Earth when Jesus was here with us in his ministry, then who can we say that Jesus was praying so unceasingly to? It is not logical that he would pray to himself, because there wouldnt be anyone to hear his prayer.
      Also, when Jesus was dead, dead as in when any other human experiences death, then if he was God too, then raised himself, would this not void the chronological plan of the resurrection?
      The evidence is overwhelming that there is a difference in the Father and the Son. And while our human minds may not fully understand their relationship, I think we are given all we need to know about the trifecta as it pertains to salvation. All thru the New Testament, 20+ times, the point is driven home that God (clearly one being, or the creator) raised The Son (clearly another being, in this case his now fully human Son)
      I really have a hard time seeing how anyone can see this any differently. I really have to encourage people to study when I ask them the question - Do you believe that God raised Jesus from the dead?

      • I am not sure how the fact that the Father and the Son being two separate beings impacts the evidence that Michael was the OT name for Jesus? Not sure what you are getting at here? Nor am I sure if that was what Rudy was getting at either...can you explain further please?

        • Brenden part,if not most of the confusion is trying to explain a subject that is beyond our complete understanding. God is the Father that Jesus says in many texts, that He prayed to, as well as the Father that He, Jesus did as the Father gave Him the power to do. What is not understood because of our human limitations is the Godhead. Three in one. Father, Son and Holy Spirit. This is God also. If this causes you to think in terms of rank or position or what ever tier system that comes to mind, there is none. They are all equal. Hebrews 1:1-4 and John 1:1-4
          are only a couple of text that support what I am saying. It really becomes even more complicated when Jesus became a human being also. Another characteristic that we cannot completely understand. Humanity and Divinity in one human body. What someone believes does not change the facts. Jesus was known by many different names. Most are descriptive of his nature and plans.

          • If the person that William studied with, believes Jesus is not God, he may be using a text that is the most well known. John 3:16. Is that not what it says?

        • Brendan, I dont so much dispute the OT aspect of it. But when I think about it further, it is obvious to me that the two are separate entities, even throughout the OT. Calling Jesus the archangel or what have you, is fine. As long as it is clear that he was still the Son, even in heaven.
          But it is important to understand the difference in God and Jesus. For instance, in John it says Jesus was there at creation, or that God created it all by working thru Jesus. Then, as a human, again, Jesus earnestly prays to the Father, just as we do. He was in purely human form, instead of being at the right hand of the throne of his Father. In heaven was where the terms of the plan of salvation was hashed out.
          Then, when it came time to put it in motion and Jesus was born on earth, he lived a sinless life, but note here he didnt have automatic immunity from sinning. He relied SOLELY on the Father to give him strength to resist Satan and temptation. He still had 100% freewill and used it to fully surrender himself to God. He perfectly reflected the perfect character and love of God, as is clearly stated.
          As the plan of salvation advances, Jesus now assumes the work of the high priest in the heavenly sanctuary. More evidence that Jesus can not be God.
          Then, as I said before it is stated over and over in the NT that God raised his Son from the dead.
          I always enjoy this discussion, and look forward to asking the questions for myself to the man himself one day! 🙂

      • Keith, no one can understand the incarnation of God as Jesus the man. God cannot die, but Jesus the man did. How God is combined with created flesh we cannot explain, but Jesus was on occasion about to be stoned for calling Himself one with God. There was no mistake by the Jewish leaders of the meaning of Jesus' words. Is Jesus a liar? Did these authorities get it wrong?

        Jesus said clearly that no one would take His life, but that He would lay down His life and take it up again. He calls Himself the resurrection and the life and never states that He shares that title. Until you have convincing evidence contrary, it is at peril to speak against what Jesus has taught us, calling Himself "the way, the Truth and the Life".

        Somethings we can't understand or begin to explain, and with enough evidence to trust in Him, we accept what He tells us by faith. Just as the lepers who were told to go show themselves to the priests BEFORE they were cleansed of the leprosy.

        Also, if this was a hoax, wouldn't Satan be the first to come out and protest? Yet the Bible tells us that even he will bow and confess, when it tells us every knee shall bow and every tongue will confess. This will take place in the day spoken of when everything secret will be made known and every question is answered concerning the fall and redemption of man.

        • Robert, I wrested in confusion with this concept also. And most of it was with the same points you bring out. The fact of the Godhead is rather obvious. They are even mentioned separately to make it easy for us to grasp.
          Now as we move into the plan of salvation in Jesus the son coming to earth, his coming had many meanings and fulfilled prophesies of past present and future.
          The point of God being in Him, when I ponder this, to me Jesus is saying that Gods spirit and nature is in him, but not him exclusively. If we mold ourselves after his example, we should have God in us also. He lived as we did and was saved totally by his own free will, the same that was imparted to Adam.
          Then there is the issue of sacrifice of sin. To cover and forgive them once and for all. Only a perfect human sacrifice pays this price. I have trouble with the concept that God made himself as a human on this corrupt earth to send himself as his own sacrifice to die for his own laws. If the sacrifice was anything more or anything less human, the sacrifice would have not been sufficient to offer. As a human, his faith and obedience and closeness to the father is where he drew the power for his miracles. He was not a human, using his dually imparted supernatural power for 'magic'.
          Another stumbling point I had as you mentioned, he had the power to take life up again. Think about what the promise of the resurrection is when he returns. All of the dead in Christ will receive life again, just as Jesus was resurrected on the third day by the father. It should be noted though that this resurrection will be done by the command of the returning Christ, but not until the command to do so by God the father. When asked about the end of time, he tells us that not even be knows when it will be, only the father. If he was God, we he not know when the end would be?
          Let me say, that I explain all of the above with a preface of not knowing that some thought that Jesus was God on earth. I didn't even know this concept until just a few years ago. The seemingly ambiguous points to support this view,to me can not trump the overwhelming evidence to what is stated very clearly otherwise all thru the new testament. Romans 10.9 drives this point home, supporting the 20+ other verses that say this same thing.
          I fully admit that none of us fully understand the relationship. But what we can understand is solidified with overwhelming evidence to help us understand the plan of salvation.
          I had to weigh out the truth I had already known, against what my SDA church tried to bring in. This was a very major part of why I had to leave the denomination. Not only do I find that this goes against the teaching of Christ and the word, but also against their own one that they consider to be an elite prophetess.

          • Due to the trinity teaching, it is believed by the majority of churches that Jesus Christ is not the literal begotten Son of God, but instead an equal, co-eternal God alongside the Father. The trinity teaching says that Jesus had no beginning and the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three co-equal, co-eternal beings that are playing a 'family role'. In other words, they are just play acting these roles of Father and Son. Because you are either a literal Father and Son, or you are just playing the roles.

            The Adventist Church along with most other churches have officially rejected the belief that Jesus is the literal Son of God. Take a look at the following official statement from the Adventist Biblical Research institute (which was also published in Adventist World magazine)

            "the father-son image cannot be literally applied to the divine Father-Son relationship within the Godhead. The Son is not the natural, literal Son of the Father ... The term 'Son' is used metaphorically when applied to the Godhead." (Adventist Biblical Research Institute
            So according to the Adventist church today, Jesus as the 'Son of God' is only a 'SYMBOLIC' application and He is not the literal Son of the Father. And yet the pioneers of the Seventh-day Adventist church clearly taught that Jesus was the literal son of God. Take a look at the following quotes.

            "Christ is the only literal Son of God. The only begotten of the Father. John 1:14." (J.G. Matteson, Review and Herald, October 12, 1869)

            "God so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son,--not a son by creation, as were the angels, nor a son by adoption, as is the forgiven sinner, but a son begotten in the express image of the Father's person." (Ellen G. White, Signs of the Times, May 30, 1895)

            "The dedication of the first-born had its origin in the earliest times. God had promised to give the first-born of heaven to save the sinner." (Ellen G. White, Desire of Ages, p. 51)

            And what does the main authority, the Word of God have to say on this? Does the Bible suggest in any way that Jesus is just playing a role as the Son of God? Or is He the literal Son? Let us look at some Bible texts to see if we can get some understanding as to who Christ really is.

            John 3:16 ...'For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.'

            Romans 8:3 ...'God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh.'

            John 16:27-28 ...'For the Father himself loveth you, because you have loved me, and have believed that I came out from God. I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father.'

            John 17:7-8 ...'Now they have known that all things whatsoever you have given me are of you. For I have given unto them the words which you gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from you, and they have believed that you did send me.'

            Proverbs 8:23-25 ...'I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was. When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water. Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth.'

            Proverbs 30:4 ...'Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son's name, if thou canst tell?'

            John 20:17 ...'Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.'

            Remember, God is our 'Father' by adoption. God is Christ's Father by birth!
            1 John 5:5 ...'Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?'
            Is John the apostle admonishing us to believe in a literal Son of God, or a metaphorical Son of God?

          • Brendan, another thought to mention concerning the point I believe you are making is this; does God always speak the truth? Does He pretend?

            The voice of God was heard no less than 2 times stating that Jesus was His "Beloved Son".

        • Robert, God's purposes and plans are absolute! Not one is dependent on Satan's reaction, not one put in place to meet his approval or disapproval. You repeat this all the time - Satan would be justified in saying this or that. God says Satan is liar, murderer, everything contrary to God. Why would God frame His purposes and plans and subject it to his approval or scrutiny?

  7. Beautiful bible study as I read along I pictured myself in every scenario. Once Micheal is there, thats all that matters. Dear Lord I ask you to help me and others to stay covered in your daily study,knowing that you will be awaiting our approach.Amen

  8. Robert, you are right! But John 12:31 is found also in Rev 12:7-12. Do you recall the activity of ANGELS in the wilderness temptation of the Son of God? Do you recall the activity of ANGELS in the garden of Gethsemane? What about on the cross, consider the “battle” that was fought there.
    Dan 10 specifically brings to view the battle between spiritual forces, forces of light and darkness, the angels of God, including Michael (one of the chief princes(angels)), and the angels of Satan, including the prince of Persia, and the prince of Greece. **By the way you designate the Father and the Holy Spirit as PRINCES!! That’s a stretch! Christ is designated the Prince of princes. So the Son is superior to the Father? Christ always acknowledged the Father as greater than the Son!**
    Yes, so we see the battle between the angel forces, including Michael, over the restoration of Israel to their homeland. That was the TYPE. Can you imagine the war that was being fought between those same spiritual forces concerning the REDEMPTION of the CHILDREN of GOD!! “For He shall save His People from their sins.”
    In John 12:30,31 Jesus says “Now judgment is upon this world; now the ruler of this world will be cast out. And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself.”
    Rev 12:7-12 “...Now the salvation, and the power, and the kingdom of our God and the authority of His Christ have come, for the accuser of our brethren has been thrown down...” Michael is among God’s angels waging war against Satan’s angels in support of Christ who is on earth being tried to the utmost as the promised Adam.

    • Kenny, I shared the word often translated as Princes, though this translation is inaccurate. "Sar" means the highest in command. CaeSAR, KaiSAR, and other such titles indicate the supreme ruler of the territory, and in the case of Gabriel's reality, this territory is all creation. There are none higher than the beings that Gabriel calls Michael "one of...". Don't let the sometimes limitations of our language distract you from the original meaning clearly given in the "more sure word of prophecy". There are even translations that say "One of the arch angels" which is not even hinted at in the original language used. A more proper translation would be "Chief Heads" or "Highest Rulers" IMO.

      Can you really accept that an "angel" and not Christ Himself will "stand for [His] people" in Daniel 12? Keep in mind that when you read "prince", if the original word is "sar", it's the highest of all ranks in the realm being considered. And in Daniel 10, Gabriel adds the adjective "Chief" to the word "sar". Highest of the high. No other way to interpret this and the meaning is unequivocal when the context and speaker are considered.

      Those are my conclusions, but study for yourself prayerfully.

      • Robert, the writer of Daniel is very consistent. The same SAR is used for the PRINCE of the Kingdom of Persia who is Satan’s angel. This is in the same verse Dan 10:13. They are performing similar functions with respect to their “GODS”. Why does God have to add “ONE of the chief princes” to Michael’s status? God is making sure we get it. And that translation ARCH ANGEL is also correct because it is equivalent to CHIEF PRINCES since both angels - Satan’s and God’s - are called PRINCES.
        One of the chief princes or arch angels identified by name is Michael. Michael means ONE LIKE GOD!

        But CHRIST IS GOD!! The Scripture distinguishes Christ in very certain terms: “In the beginning was the WORD, and the WORD WAS WITH GOD, and THE WORD WAS GOD.“ John 1:1
        “(God) in these last days has spoken to us in HIS SON, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world. And He IS the RADIANCE of HIS GLORY and the EXACT IMPRINT OF HIS NATURE, and upholds all things by the word of his power.” Heb 1:2,3
        “...see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, WHO IS THE IMAGE OF GOD”. 2 Cor 4:4.
        “ Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in THE FORM OF GOD, did not regard EQUALITY WITH GOD a thing to be grasped...”Phil 2:6
        “HE IS THE IMAGE of the INVISIBLE GOD, FIRSTBORN OF ALL CREATION... in Him all things hold together” Col 1:15 -17.
        “Truly YOU ARE THE SON OF GOD.” Matt 14:33
        “Your throne, O GOD, is forever and ever.” Heb 1:8
        Can we disregard these contributions of the Word?

        • The "sar" of Persia means the one in charge of that realm. The sar that rules over Gabriel can only be God. In Dan 10:13 the "one" is echad, the same as in Deuteronomy 6:4.

          Again, it comes down to who is speaking and their position. It also matters the language (original) being used. It's very significant.

          "Arch angels" is not a proper translation for Dan 10:13, and is only someone's interpretation, though incorrect. There is only one arch angel spoken of in all of scripture. He commands the angels(Josh 5:14, Rev 12:7), stands for God's people(Dan 12:1), and His voice raises the dead(1 Thess 4:16, Jude 9).

          I don't know what else to add.

  9. I believe Michael is Jesus as well, I call Jesus Lord Michael and that works for me!

    The son of God,

    Michael is the best!


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>