FIVE OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED
Now that we have identified who Michael is, I will proceed with responding to certain objections raised by critics.
Objection #1: Two different Hebrew words are used: I once encountered the semantic argument that the Hebrew word used in Daniel 10:13 is different from the one in Daniel 9:25, which is a reference to the Messiah. The argument goes like this: Though both texts say “prince” yet both words are from two different Hebrew words. The one in Daniel 10:13 is שַׂר which is transliterated sar, while the one in Daniel 9:25 is נָגִיד which is transliterated nagiyd. This difference, supposedly, proves that Michael cannot possibly be Jesus.
But imagine if I referred to Michael as a person in one sentence, and then I refer to Michael as an individual in the next sentence, and then say that these two terms prove Michael is not the same person. You would tell me that I am being nonsensical, wouldn’t you? Evidently, both words can be used and it does not necessarily prove there are two different people. It is the same with the sar and nagiyd. While both are not exactly the same, they are similar and can be used to refer to the same person.
Additionally, the word sar is also used to describe Jesus. Note the following texts:
“Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince (sar) of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down… And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince (sar) of princes (sar); but he shall be broken without hand.” (Daniel 8:11, 25)
It’s generally understood that the “prince of the host” (compare Joshua 5:13-15) and the “prince of princes” is Jesus. Jesus is often addressed as a prince in the bible, and Isaiah 9:6 specifically calls Jesus the “prince (sar) of peace.” Since both these terms are used to describe Jesus, than I do not see why this should cause a problem with identifying the appearance of Michael in Daniel 10:13 as a Christophany.
Objection #2: Jesus is not a prince among other princes: This argument relies on the words “one of” in Daniel 10:13. The claim is that Jesus has no equals so Jesus cannot be Michael because Michael is just one chief prince among other chief princes.
We first have to determine why the texts reads like this. A few pages ago we noted that there are two other princes in this context, the prince of Persia, and the prince of Grecia (verses 13 and 20), making it fitting for the text to say “one of.” In fact, there are several princes referenced in the entire book of Daniel:
The word “prince” appears 16 times: 1:7 (sar), 8 (sar), 9 (sar), 10 (sar), 11 (sar), 18 (sar), 8:11 (sar), 25 (sar), 9:25 (nagiyd), 26 (nagiyd), 10:13 (sar), 10:20 (sar), 10:21 (sar), 11:18 (qatsiyn), 22 (nagiyd), 12:1 (sar).
The word “princes” appears 18 times: 1:3 (partam), 3:2 (achashdarpan), 3:3 (achashdarpan), 3:27 (achashdarpan), 5:2 (rabrĕban), 3 (rabrĕban), 6:1 (‘achashdarpan), 2 (‘achashdarpan), 3 (‘achashdarpan), 4 (‘achashdarpan), 6 (‘achashdarpan), 7 (‘achashdarpan), 8:25 (sar), 9:6 (sar), 8 (sar), 10:13 (sar), 11:5 (sar), 8 (nĕciyk – “molten god, drink offering, duke).
That’s 34 princes in total, several of these are sar. Now it is my conviction that Daniel 10:13 says “one of” because of the two princes mentioned in its context, but it seems like every sar mentioned in Daniel is also some kind of leader or chief. If this is so, then actually Daniel was aware of many more sars than just these three, which would make the explanatory phrase “one of” all the more necessary.
Now we have to determine the apparent implication that this somehow means Jesus is the same as others. Though this may seem like the case, Daniel 12:1 settled the matter when it referred to Michael as the “great prince.” For example, you might have two managers in one office. One of them is a “great” manager, the other one not so great. In a company you can have all kinds of leaders, the CEO, the COO, supervisors, general managers, lead techs, etc. All are equal in the leadership sense, while some hold greater positions than others. This fits well with Young’s Literal Translation of the text which reads “first of the chief heads.” The point is that if Jesus is Michael a prince, Jesus is still greater than those other princes. I see no issues here.
Objection #3: Jesus would not be afraid of Satan: Because Jude 1:9 says that Michael “dared not bring against him a reviling accusation” it is supposed that this cannot be Jesus because Jesus is not afraid of Satan. But if Michael is not Jesus, doesn’t this imply that Michael is afraid of Satan? It seems to me like this argument is not very reasonable.
Actually, the text does say that Michael rebuked Satan, so no one is afraid of him. What he did not do was bring against him a “railing accusation.” Since this phrase quite literally means to slander, I expect Jesus not to act like a devil.15
Objection #4: Jesus was not speaking of himself in the third person: Another objection with regards to Jude 1:9 is that the title “Lord” refers to Jesus, and so Michael could not be Jesus because Jesus is not speaking of himself in the third person.
The argument fails to consider that the “Lord” in Jude 1:9 can be the Father, in which case he would not be referring to himself in the third person. Jesus himself addresses the Father as “Lord” several times. Two examples are Matthew 4:10 and Matthew 11:25.
Argument #5: Jesus is God, not an angel: To advance this objection critics will appeal to texts such as Hebrews 1:5-8 which make it clear that Jesus is not an angel. But these texts are speaking of angels as created beings, and of course, we do not believe that Jesus is a created being. The failure of this argument is to truly understand what Christians actually believe. Unlike other religions, we do not believe that Jesus is Michael a created angelic being, but that Michael is simply another name for Jesus. To suggest that Michael the Archangel could be a portrayal of Jesus is not the same as saying Jesus Christ is a created angel named Michael. To be clear, Jesus is truly God, but often manifests himself under other names and titles such as Emmanual, David, the Captain of the Lord’s hosts, the Angel of the Lord and Michael the Archangel, none of which needs take away from his absolute divinity.