In Job 38:7 we read that when the earth was created, “The morning stars (plural, which we believe there were only two, the Logos and Lucifer) sang together, AND all the sons of God (the rest of the angels) shouted for joy.”

Our Lord referred to himself as one of these morning stars in Rev 22:16, when he stated, “I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.”

Satan likewise at one time was one of these “morning stars”, in Isa 14:12 we read,

“How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning? How art thou cut down to the ground (limited to the earth and sentenced to destruction), which didst weaken the nations (through sin)?”

The term “son of the morning” merely implies that Lucifer, “The shining one” was one of the earliest of creation, one of many angelic sons of creation’s first morning.

“You were the anointed cherub who covers (a guardian cherub: an angel of a very high order); I established you; you were on the holy mountain of God; you walked back and forth in the midst of the fiery stones (amongst the other angels, compare Heb 1:7). You were perfect in your ways from the day you were created, till iniquity (sin) was found in you.” (Ezek 28:14, 15)

The title of “cherubim” is more properly a title of position and not an indication of another order of spirit being.

When Lucifer fell he not only lost this position or title as a cherub, but likewise his name was changed from Lucifer, the “the shining one” to that of Satan, meaning the hater and accuser.

Our Lord, the “bright and morning star” had the title of the Logos, the “Word of God” and the name Michael.

“This term signifies chief-messenger, and occurs but twice, Jude 9; and 1 Thess 4:16. It is never used in the plural, and altogether seems to teach that there is but the one chief-messenger of Jehovah.

While we are not directly told who is Jehovah’s chief-messenger, except that his name was called Michael, the thought suggests itself; Can it be that he who was called Michael–Jehovah’s chief-messenger–was none other than our Lord in his pre-human condition? He who “did not meditate a usurpation to be like God, but divested himself, taking a bondman’s form, having been made in likeness of men” (Phil 2:6, 7), and whom Jehovah in consequence highly exalted and gave “a name above every name; that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow and every tongue confess to the glory of God the Father“? (Phil 2:10, 11)

We call to mind that Jesus was called “the messenger [angel] of the covenant” (Mal 3:1), and from what we learn of his pre-human glory, we conclude that he must have been “chief messenger.” Surely we may well reason that Jehovah’s first-born, the beginning of the creation of God, would be the chief. And the thought gathers force as we remember that he was the “only begotten of the Father“—the only being whom Jehovah directly created, and in this sense the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and ending of Jehovah’s creation, who “was before all things, and by whom [as Jehovah’s agent] all things consist” (Col 1:16, 17), “Without him was not anything made that was made” (John 1:3).

Surely chief-messenger would be a fitting TITLE for this being. And we inquire,

If he was not the chief-messenger, who was his superior?

One expression in Scripture may at first sight seem to conflict with this thought that Jesus and the archangel are identical. It is Heb 1:13: “But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand until I make thy enemies thy footstool?” Unto none of the angels, we answer, but to Him who was superior, a chief over angels–the only begotten of the Father. Thus seen, this Scripture not only does not oppose but supports this view.

Examining the various connections in which the word is found should teach us something. We find Jude using it (Verse 9) with profound respect, as of one in superior control. In Dan 10:13-21; 12:1, Michael is again mentioned in great respect, and as the superior of Gabriel, who himself was one of the most honored angels (Luke 1:19).

If Michael was the LORD’s chief messenger why wasn’t it he who was sent to announce the birth of the Savior?

It is significant, that in the announcement of the conception of Jesus, Gabriel was sent (Luke 1:26), a fact which can scarcely be accounted for otherwise than as we now do, by supposing that it was the chief-messenger whose existence was transferred from being in a form of God (a spiritual being), to the babe of Bethlehem, to become a man. Doubtless the second highest messenger still remaining in the courts of glory (Gabriel) was sent on that most marked and notable occasion.

In Dan 12:1, the prophecy touches the Day of the Lord and its events–the very time in which we are living–the time of resurrection, etc., and instead of saying, Then shall Messiah set up his kingdom, etc., it says, “At that time shall Michael stand up [begin to exercise his power and dominion]–the GREAT PRINCE, etc.” We reason that this Great Prince–Michael–Jehovah’s chief-messenger, is none other than the Lord of glory.

But the key to the whole matter seems to be in our hands when we learn that the name Michael means: “WHO AS GOD,” or “WHO IS LIKE GOD.”

Who is like God but him whom God hath highly exalted and given a name above every name; who is partaker of the divine nature, and “the express image of the Father’s person,” of whom it is written, that “All men should honor the Son even as they honor the Father,” also–“And let all the angels of God worship him“? With the meaning of the word Michael in this last text how significantly it reads: At that time shall he who is like God stand up— come into power–the Great Prince. Yes, he shall take to himself his great power and reign. (Compare Dan 12:1, 2; Rev 11:17, 18)

Paul’s mention of the Archangel is in harmony. “The Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the chief-messenger and the trump of God, and the dead in Christ shall rise,” etc.

In our next post we should like to elaborate a bit more on some of the proof texts mentioned.