Jesus may not be Archangel Michael (as the WTS teaches), but it is still conceivable that he may be an Archangel.
The arguments often heard on JWD are very adamant that the role of Archangelship is sooooo below his lofty reach. But is there valid scriptural proof that it is so? These arguments may just be a sincere attempt to expose the fallacy of JW doctrine. However, they are surely very convenient to the pro-Trinitarian camp. I mean if Jesus is truly God, he mustn't be demoted in any way to the role of Archangel, correct?
Of course, motive alone does not prove that their arguments are in error. So I shall make the following counter-response and allow you to be the judge of their arguments and mine. My material draws on what was written by lovelylil and David Reed on this subject. You can find her thread here and his website here.
My aim is to scrutinize the arguments that have been used to dismiss the notion that Jesus might be an Archangel. Proof that Jesus isn't Michael is NOT proof that Jesus isn't an archangel.
(1)
1 Thess 4:16 - "the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice and with God’s trumpet"
The WTS erred in presuming that this text is conclusive evidence that the Lord must necessarily be an archangel. Lovelylil and Reed were initially correct. Christ's descent is marked by the herald of an archangel's voice. It doesn't explicitly say that Christ was himself calling out. But the funny thing was that lovelylil and Reed then goes on to commit the same WTS mistake: they read too much INTO the text, only at the other extreme.
The scripture does not say that the Lord did NOT call out with an archangel's voice. Lovelylil and Reed makes the mistake of completely dismissing this possibility. The Lord may be the source of that archangel's voice, he may not. Without drawing on external sources to that effect, nothing in this text makes the claim that JWs or Trinitarians are clamoring for.
Lovelylil attempts to prove that the Lord's descent was heralded by angels other than himself by referring to Gospels Matthew 25:31 and Mark 8:38. This only leaves a bigger mess in the debate. In the forementioned Gospels, Jesus' returns with angels, but there is nothing mentioned of angels announcing his arrival. Even if they did, it would be the raucous calls of an army, not of a sole archangel. How that is even remotely relevant to 1 Thess 4:16, is left unexplained.
(2)
Daniel 10:13 - " Michael, one of the foremost/chief princes"
This text bombs out of the water the assertion that there is only one archangel...ONLY IF... the rank of chief prince corresponds with archangel.
Just because "chief" means "head/arch" and "prince" is interpreted as "angel", doesn't mean that chief prince = archangel. If we accept this flawed reasoning, then it must be a fact that Prime Minister = Archbishop!! Is it not even plausible that chief prince and archangels belong to different classes of angelic hierarchy?
But let's be generous and suppose that lovelylil and Reed are correct. Let's pretend that chief prince does mean archangel. What then? Obviously, the WTS teaching of a solo archangel is ruined. But it does nothing to imply that Jesus cannot be another archangel. The Trinitarians must justify why Jesus isn't an archangel.
(3)
Jude 9 - "Not daring to bring a judgment against Satan in abusive terms,’ Michael warned Satan: "May the Lord rebuke you"."
Basically the argument against the JW belief is this: If Michael couldn't tell Satan to f*ck off but Jesus could, doesn't it show that they are two different beings?
The problem with this argument is there are too many unanswered questions to make the above assumption.
Was Michael intending to verbally abuse Satan? If so, did Jesus ever "verbally abuse" Satan? When? How? What did he say? Note that whatever it was Michael intended to use against Satan, it was harsh. Other translations use the terms "slanderous accusation" (NIV), "railing accusation" (KJV), "blasphemous judgement" (English Std Version).
What evidence is there that even Jesus ever used such harsh words with the Devil?
(4)
Rev 12:6,7 - baby Jesus (according to mainstream Christians) and Michael the warring angel, surely these are two individuals?!
Yes, that would be the case provided that JWs do not argue these are different events penned next to each other: the anachronistic argument. And before mainstream Christians hiss and boo, they had better remember that they too employ this technique in dismissing the apparent discrepancies between the two creation accounts of Genesis 1 and 2. When events don't have to occur chronologically, loop-holes miraculously disappear.
Conclusion:
I'm not saying that I favour the JW view over the beliefs of mainstream Christians. But the latter must make a stronger case before attempting to mock JW beliefs. Such attempts can and do backfire. The reason it is so difficult to establish dogma is that the Bible is ambiguous. Its "language" can be used to argue so many different perspectives. "What is truth?", as Pilate would say.
I can see no reason to suppose that there is only one archangel and his name is Michael aka Jesus ( the JW belief). In fact, I do not know why Michael has to be equated with Jesus. There is obviously no explicit scripture saying that it must be so. But then again, the scriptures do allow for that interpretation, a conclusion that Trinitarians and literalist Christians vehemently deny.
On the other hand, I also see no reason to suppose that there are many archangels and yet Jesus cannot be one of them. You want Michael and Jesus to be two beings, not one? Sure! But that doesn't automatically mean that Jesus cannot be an Archangel. Surely one who is exalted above angels has to at least be an Archangel.
But is Christ more than that? The nature of Jesus always draws us back to the Athanasian vs Arian debate. I don't feel comfortable with people dismissing the Archangel-ship of Jesus without admitting that they are (at least on a subconscious level) doing so because they believe Jesus is God (possibly pro-Trinitarian).
INQ