REVELATION 12:7 AND REVELATION 19:14-16

                     ARMY LEADER: JESUS OR MICHAEL?

                                    "The Bible states that 'Michael and his angels battled with the dragon... and its angels' (Revelation 12:7)Thus, Michael is the leader of an army of faithful angels. Revelation also describes Jesus as the leader of an army of faithful angels. (Revelation 19:14-16) And Apostle Paul specifically mentions 'The Lord Jesus' and 'his powerful angels' (2 Thessalonians 1:7; Matthew 16:27; 24:31; 1 Peter 3:22) So the Bible speaks of both Michael and 'his angels' and Jesus and 'his angels' (Matthew 13:41) Since God's Word nowhere indicates that there are two armies of faithful angels in heaven-- one headed by Michael and one headed by Jesus-- it is logical to conclude that Michael is none other than Jesus Christ in his heavenly role" ---What Does the Bible Really Teach? Appndx. pp. 218-219 "Who Is Michael the Archangel?"

                        Who is the leader of the heavenly army? This is the question where the entirety of the argument is based; is it Jesus or is it Michael OR are they one in the same?

From the above quoted Jesus/Michael believer (Hence, JM), we see that this reasoning is based on the Revelation 12:7 that talks of Michael battling the dragon "with his angels" and Revelation 19:14-16 that depicts Jesus Christ going off to battle "with the armies of heaven" for the final battle. They see this to mean that both Jesus and Michael are called "army leaders" and that since the Bible does not talk about two heavenly armies (one headed by Michael and the other headed by Jesus), then, they say, it is "logical" to conclude that they are the same.

This is a conjecture, of course, that has its strength and pillars in the word "logical". It's like sitting on the fence. The scripture doesn't teach it but you believe it, thus, it either has to be "logical to conclude" or "dogmatic to accept" that it is or it is not. If the Scripture did teach such a thing, it wouldn't just be "logical" to "conclude" but bound to the fact that it is or is not. But of course it's not!

One with knowledge of ancient warfare and even, sometimes, today's would see this argument as a complete out-of-the-window humour. If you go through the statement, you'd notice that the writer already based his/her "conclusions" that anyone leading the heavenly army must be of a particular rank; that is, must be the archangel. Thus, with such presuppositions, s/he has already made it a point of "rule" that only an archangel can lead the heavenly army. Is this true?

Before we dig deep into the Scriptures, let us remember the former President of the US, George Bush who was commander-in-chief of the US forces. How would it sound if one is to conclude that no one can lead an army except the commander-in-chief (the President)? Isn't that silly? Yes it is of course! George had leaders under him such as General Petraeus, who had a subset of some US forces under him in Iraq. Thus, George could speak of "his soldiers" in Iraq as well as Petraeus could also speak of "his soldiers" in Iraq. This doesn't make General Petraeus the President nor does it say it make George the General talk less of going as far as claiming that they are one in the same! This is the same with Jesus going off to war against the forces of evil and Michael who initially fought the dragon while it was in heaven.

I know you readers want scriptural point and not just analogies and may even feel that an analogy is all we can offer but let us cut deeper into this gashed argument.

In the Scriptures, Kings went to battles with their armies:

David was a perfect example.

In battle, David was usually among them fighting; which explains how it was possible that "When the Philistines heard that David had now been made king over the whole country of Israel, their army went out to capture him. So David marched to meet them. The Philistines arrived at the Valley of Rephaim and began plundering. David asked God, "Shall I attack the Philistines? Will you give me the victory?" The LORD answered, "Yes, attack! I will give you thee victory!" So David attacked them at Baal Perazim and defeated them. He said, "God has used me to break through the enemy army like a flood." So the place is called Baal Perazim." (I Chronicle 14:8-12).

It is clear that David, even as king of Israel, went out to battle with his army. This was the ancient practice of war. Even up to the Late B.C's and early A.D's, kings went out to war with their army; Alexander the great often battle alongside his soldiers, yet, that doesn't prove that they were the captain of the army.

Joab was commander of David's army (II Samuel 8:16;20:23; I Chronicle 11:6; 18:15). Afterwards, he was promoted to the rank of General (I Chronicle 27:34). And from the Bible, we are told that David sometimes chose to stay at home while his army went out for battle (for example, II Samuel 11:1 cf. I Chronicle 20:1 which even affirm the fact that kings indeed go out for battle with their army but could chose to stay at home).

Now, when we go through the above references and compare them with the point these JM preachers make, what do we get?

* Michael with his angels battled the dragon (Revelation 12:7); Joab with his soldiers battled the Ammonites (II Samuel 11:1 cf. I Chronicle 20:1)

* Jesus went out with the armies of heaven to battle the forces of evil (Revelation 19:14-16); David went out with his soldiers to battle the Philistines (I Chronicle 14:8-12)

If Michael and Jesus Christ are "one in the same" for the above reason, then we must also conclude that David and Joab are "one in the same". After all, just as "God's Word nowhere indicates that there are two armies of faithful angels in heaven-- one headed by Michael and one headed by Jesus-- it is logical to conclude that Michael is none other than Jesus Christ in his heavenly role," God's Word, also, nowhere indicates that there are two armies of faithful soldiers in Israel--one headed by Joab and one headed by David-- shouldn't it then, also, be logical to conclude that Joab is none other then king David in his military role?

What a point! I guess we should now refer to our Lord Jesus Christ as "Son of Joab" as well as "Son of David", shouldn't we?

So wrong!

I quote:

"When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his throne of glory" (Matthew 25:31).

The Bible is always very clear about issues like this. Jesus' coming at Revelation 19:14-16 is evidently talked about in Matthew 25:31 and as Jesus said, he would be coming with all the angels. Obviously, Michael, being among God's angels, will be among the angels at Jesus' coming. Thus, Michael (in Revelation 12:7) plays the role of Joab the commander as "captain of the army" while Jesus Christ (in Revelation 19:14-16) plays the role of king David as "King of the army". Michael the archangel is absolutely not Jesus Christ our Lord just as Joab was not David the king Israel. As simple as that.

            Another point raised by JMs in this same passage is that since the Bible talks of "Michael and his angels" (in Revelation 12:7) as well as it describes Jesus as army leader (in Revelation 19:14-16) and also talks of "The Lord Jesus" and "His mighty angels," then Michael and Jesus Christ are one in the same.

Inasmuch as we have talked about Joab and David in relation to Michael and Jesus, this point is proven to be absolutely dead by now; yet, I would like to analyze this issue further in order to debunk such a belief from both sides.

As expected, the Bible makes a similar statement regarding David and Joab, I quote:

"Be strong and courageous! Let's fight hard for our people and for the cities of our God. And may the LORD's will be done! Joab and his men advanced to attack, and the Syrians fled." (II Samuel 10:12-13)

Without looking far, I quote:

"King Hadadezer sent for the Syrians who were on the east side of River Euphrates, and they came to Helam under the command of Shobach, commander of the army of king Hadadezer of Zobah. When David heard of it, he gathered the Israelite troops, crossed the Jordan, and marched to Helam, where the Syrians took up their positions facing him. The fighting began, and the Israelites drove the Syrian army back. David and his men killed seven hundred Syrian chariot drivers and forty thousand horsemen, and they wounded Shobach, the enemy commander who died on the battlefield." (II Samuel 10:16-18)

Now, if we were to take the same approach these JM preachers take towards Michael "and his angels" and Jesus "and his angels" wouldn't I be saying that David and Joab are one in the same?

The army is the commander's as well as it is the king's but the commander is never the king not to talk of being one and the same with the one who sits on the throne. This is just why the JM doctrine remains very weak.

Furthermore, if the writers of the Bible meant to describe Jesus Christ as Michael the archangel by the terms "and his angel" or "and his/the armies", then Paul would be wrong at Colossians 2:18 for disapproving the worship of angels since the Bible also talks of 'Jehovah', 'God', 'The Father' and 'his angels' and would also mean that Michael is God the Father. I quote

"Jehovah-- from Sinai he came, And he shone upon them from Seir. He shone forth in glory from the mountains region of Paran, and with him were holy myriads, At his right hand his warriors. He had affection for his people." (Deuteronomy 33:2-3 NWT)

"Yes, the seventh one in line from Adam, Enoch, also prophesied about them when he said: "Look! Jehovah came with his holy myriads to execute judgment against all and to convict all ungodly concerning all their ungodly deeds that they did in an ungodly way and concerning all the shocking things that ungodly sinners spoke against him" (Jude 14-15 NWT)

"He that conquers will thus be arrayed in white outer garments; and I will by no means blot out his name from the book of life, but I will make acknowledgment of his name before my Father and before his angels." (Revelation 3:5, NWT)

"I say, then, to YOU, Everyone that confesses union with me before men, the Son of man will also confess union with him before the angels of God." (Luke 12:8, NWT)

Of course, the term "holy myriad" refers to an army of holy angels. Jehovah is said to be with "his angels" just as Jesus and Michael are, too. Thus, if Jesus and Michael one in the same, then, Michael = Jesus = Jehovah which would mean that we serve none other than Michael the archangel who "Dared not" accuse the Devil in Jude 9.

Jesus Christ our Lord is not, has never been and will never be Michael the archangel.

STAY BLESSED.