k looks like no one is gonna straighten it out from a Jw stand point so here it is
Scriptural evidence indicates that the name of Michael applied to God's son before he left heaven to become Jesus Christ and also after his return. Michael is the only one said to be the "the arcangel" meaning "chief angel" or "principle angel" The term occurs inthe Bible only in the singular. This seems to imply that there is but one whom God has designated chief , or head, of the angelic host. At 1Thessalonians 4:16 the voice of the ressurected Lord Jesus Christ is describe as being that of an arcangel, suggesting that he is, in fact, himself the arcangel. This text depicts him as descending from heaven with "a commanding call".It is only logical, therefore, that the voice expressing this commanding call be described by a word that woud not diminish or detract from the great authority that Christ Jesus now has as King of kings and Lord of lords (Matthew 28:18 Revelation 17:14). If the designation "archangel" applied, not to Jesus Christ, but to other angels, then the reference to "an archangel's voice" would not be appropriate. In that case it would be describing a voice of a lesser authority than that of the Son of God."
hope that anwsers some questions