by Anthony F. Buzzard

There is an extraordinary confusion among some unitarian Bible students as to the identity of Jesus. They propose that Jesus is Michael the Archangel. This is logically excluded by the language of Daniel 10:13.

We read that Michael is “one of the chief princes.” The word “prince” in Daniel refers to an angel. Michael is therefore one of the chief angels. That should be clear: there are other chief angels. We know that there are indeed a number of chief angels in Jewish theology, and Gabriel is also presented as a prominent angel, though not described in precisely those words.

But again, I stress this: Daniel says that Michael is one of the chief angels. If he is one of the chief angels, that of course tells us that there are other chief angels of the same rank.

Now that is impossible for Jesus. He is not one member of a category. He is uniquely the begotten Son of God. So that rules out any possibility of Jesus being one of the chief angels, which is what is said of Michael.

It is therefore a falsehood, loud and clear, to claim that Jesus is an archangel. An archangel is a superior angel—an elevated or senior angel.

To which of the angels, of any sort, did God ever say, “You are my Son; today I have begotten you”? He never said that to any angel. That proves that Jesus could not have been an angel, a superior angel, or an archangel at any point. That is ruled out by the plain language of Hebrews 1.

In Philippians 2, we learn that God exalted Jesus to the highest position. He placed him in the highest position as a result of his ministry. Jesus was promoted to the highest position.

Now, if you say that Michael was Jesus in a prehuman existence, you are not describing any kind of promotion. You are simply saying, as one group does, that Michael resumed his position in heaven.

But you cannot resume your position in heaven and, at the same time, be promoted to the highest possible position if you already possessed that position from the beginning. The whole claim becomes incoherent.