The following article has been retracted in factual grounds. See the bottom for details:


Several sects such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses and Seven Day Adventists teach that Jesus Christ is, in fact, Michael the Archangel. Without getting lost in the weeds one may confidently believe that their claims are untrue. We have proof of this in Daniel 10 and Revelation 1. In both of these passages, a description of Jesus Christ is given and in the Book of Daniel we see that it is explicitly stated that Michael the Archangel is someone other than the “son of man” described.

The following is from the latest New World Translation from

A Description of Jesus in Daniel

I looked up and saw a man clothed in linen, and around his waist was a belt of gold from Uʹphaz.  His body was like chrysʹo·lite, his face had the appearance of lightning, his eyes were like fiery torches, his arms and his feet looked like burnished copper, and the sound of his words was like the sound of a multitude (Dan 10:5-6).

Note the above characteristics:

  1. Clothed in linen
  2. Belt of gold
  3. Body like a shining gem, face is bright, eyes like fire, extremities like “copper”
  4. Voice is like a “multitude”

A Description of Jesus in Revelation

I heard behind me a strong voice like that of a trumpet…someone like a son of man, clothed in a garment that reached down to the feet and wearing a golden sash around his chest.  Moreover, his head and his hair were white as white wool, as snow, and his eyes were like a fiery flame,  and his feet were like fine copper when glowing in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of many waters (Rev 1:10-13-15)

Note the above characteristics:

  1. Clothed in a (linen?) garment
  2. Sash of gold
  3. Face is “white” (bright?), eyes like fire, extremities like “copper”
  4. Voice is like “many waters” or a “trumpet” (i.e. like a multitude of noise)

Clearly, the two preceding descriptions are of the same entity, with any slight differences (i.e. belt versus sash) probably due to translation and the language used (Hebrew versus Greek).

Proof That Michael the Archangel is Different Than Jesus Christ

Miʹcha·el, one of the foremost princes, came to help me; and I remained there beside the kings of Persia (Dan 10:13).

There is no one strongly supporting me in these things but Miʹcha·el (Dan 10:21).

In the preceding verses, we see that when Jesus Christ (Who was described) speaks, He mentions that Michael “the prince” (i.e. Archangel) is supporting Him. This means, indisputably, they are two different persons.


I pray that the preceding may help those Adventists, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and others seeking for the truth in this matter. Further, for those who want to witness to these sectarians, these verses may be helpful in that they are impossible to dispute and not the usual apologetic they are used to hearing.

May by God’s grace we worship Him in truth and all due humility.


At first glance, it would seem the one speaking is the object of the vision in Dan 10:6, because Daniel himself says so in verse 9: “I heard the sound of his words; and while I heard the sound of his words I was in a deep sleep.” Immediately afterwards, there was an unannounced appearance of someone who says, “O Daniel, man greatly beloved, understand the words that I speak to you” (Dan 10:11).

Upon first reading, it seemed pretty clear to me that the person in verse 11 is taking credit for the words being spoken in verse 9. We would have no reason to doubt this if it were not for the fact that he says in verse 13 that “the kingdom of Persia withstood me twenty-one days; and behold, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, for I had been left alone there with the kings of Persia.” If this were the object of the vision in verse 6, which would appear to be the Alpha and Omega from Rev 1, why would he need help?

While God does not need angels, yet He employs their help anyway, it is possible that this is really a non-issue. Nonetheless, the idea of the omnipresent, preincarnate God being “left alone” does not seem workable. This would mean, that the person speaking in verse 11 is an angel, and that he is offering the interpretation of what was heard in verse 9.

In Dan 8:16, Gabriel explained a vision to Daniel. It therefore seems that the consistent reading of Dan 10 is that God spoke and His voice, being too excellent for Daniel, essentially knocked him out cold. Gabriel (or some other guardian angel) was sent to bring Daniel to his feet and calmly explain the words of the prophesy.

The fathers like Saints Jerome and Hippolytus agree the vision is of God. However, Jerome (without naming the angel) does teach that an angel is speaking, explaining the voice of the multitude, as I postulated above.

So, if I were to make the argument for the Jehovah’s Witnesses, I may say that the vision in verse 6 is not of God but of Michael the Archangel! If, Gabriel or some other angel is speaking explaining what was spoken by the appearance in verse 6, then my argument is that the appearance is not Jehovah God. I’d reason, that its an appearance of Michael the Archangel and that in Rev 1 we have another appearance of Michael the Archangel. To bolster this claim, Michael is an important person in the explanation given by “Gabriel” in verses 13 and 21. It would make sense just like a vision was given in chapter 8 and its significance was letter explained by Gabriel, that in chapter 10 a vision of Michael was given, because later in the explanation it is explained that only Michael is helping Gabriel in fighting the demons of Persia. Further, in Dan 12:1 and Rev 12:7 he plays a leading role in the final defeat of Satan and his demons.

If the Jehovah’s Witnesses are right, then Michael is awesome in that his speaking is so excellent it cannot be heard.

Do we have any evidence against such an interpretation? For one, Dan 10:13 calls Michael “one of the chief princes,” which would seem, that he is not the greatest created being that Jehovah’s Witnesses postulate he is. Further, the voice of the appearance was compared to “a multitude.” I postulated earlier, that this was like a sound of “many waters” in Rev 1:13 and hence God has a voice of a storm. The sound of God speaking in John 12:29 was heard as thunder. Other Scriptures accord with this such as 2 Sam 22:14, Job 26:14, Job 37:2, Job 37:4-5, Job 40:9, Ps 18:13, etcetera. To cite more verses would be superfluous. In short, when the Lord speaks He sounds like a rain storm: “The voice of the Lord is over the waters; The God of glory thunders; The Lord is over many waters” (Ps 29:3).

However, the voice of angels has been called “thunderous,” (Ezek 3:12) and another is described to “have a voice like thunder” (Rev 6:1). Further, “the voice of the multitude” refers to angels is Is 13:4.

In short, I cannot find any contradiction to the Jehovah’s Witnesses in their possible objections to Dan 10. For this reason, I retract my previous article as it cannot definitively prove in of itself that Jesus is not Michael the Archangel.