HI deputy and leolaia
I think since Jesus is acknowledge Mediator of the new covenant despite malachi ambigous language, I think it's splitting hairs to say he is not the "messenger of the covenant" since he has obvious designated john who did prepare the way for Jesus in the first part of malachi but I'll let it ride.
I changed my mind I am saying all messengers are angels because that the word for angel only means messenger, so hense the hebrew word in malachi is the word for angel/messenger used in both cases, a messenger doesn't have to necessarily be a spirit creature but spirit creatures are called angel/messengers because they were and acted as messenger to God. I refer the 'Angel of the Lord' or 'messenger of the lord' that appeared to the various leaders abraham moses etc.
So what we have in reality is spirit creature who work as angels/messengers on the one side and humans on the other that can also work as messengers/or angels. Jesus is an acknowledge messenger to God.
hebrews clearly shows that Jesus superiority to the angels is not that he isn't an angel but that he earned a position above them, in name hense why we have the word 'Become' used which denotes a lack of superiority in the past so he doesn't preclude a spirit creature acheiving this as isaac would debate it.
At this point you or isaac may say well as a man Jesus he wasn't superior but that would argue against trinitarian doctrine of fully 100% man and m 100% God at the same time which is trying to say Jesus is God in all his 3 cycles so always superior to angels.
As for michael it is a bible Fact that many of the main players have multiple names and titles getting referred to them at various points sometimes letting the text define which being is being refered to. Malachi itself is a point in fact and it takes JEsus to identify one of the messengers in it.
So all witnesses believe is that michael is simply another by which Jesus acts under like he acts under the name of 'the lamb' like he acts under the name of 'the word' like he acts under the name of 'Jesus' or he acts under the name of "christ" which unlike some believe isn't his sir name but the reference to him being the annointed.
For us to acknowledge any sort of hypostatc union we would have to say that it is this openly as trinitarians do, otherwise you are saying anyone with a name change in the bible is showing a hypostatic union if you cannot acknowledge that we can believe it is only a name alternative in our eyes, not a union of one conscousness with another.
That you believe michael is a different person to jesus so you would make it a hypostatic union if you put them together but we just think it is another name alternative of the bible precedent has been set as something that can happen without it involveing some sort of hypostatc union.
Reniaa