by Roger McCay
25 June 2023
Sermon Passage: Revelation 12:7-12
Link to Audio Version
There are various misconceptions as to what is taught in Scripture and what is not. And while many examples can be given, in relation to our passage today, there are abundant misconceptions about angels—indeed, a whole category of misconceptions. For example, you’ve probably all heard about Gabriel the archangel blowing his trumpet, declaring the Lord’s return. Yet, nowhere, anywhere does the Bible say he will do that. Indeed, the Bible never calls Gabriel an archangel at all—he is only called an angel. Also, the Bible never mentions Gabriel blowing a horn, and good luck figuring out where that idea originated. What the Bible does say is that “the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God.” (1 Thess. 4:16). But the only being who is named as archangel (in Jude 9 to be exact) is Michael, who, unlike Gabriel, is never referred to by name as an “angel,” in the Scriptures.
The main reason for various angelic misconceptions seems to go back to The Roman Catholic Church picking up on the stories of angels written in Jewish apocryphal and pseudepigraphal books (such as Tobit and The Book of Enoch[1]), and then elaborating on the stories and teaching them to the masses. As such, unbiblical ideas, as to angels, entered into the consciousness of the church many centuries ago, having influenced even Protestant minds: ideas like the notion that there are seven archangels. And these supposed seven archangels are sometimes identified with the seven angels mentioned in Rev. 8:2.
We could go on and on about various things people think are in the Bible, thinking these things are true because they are in the Bible, except that those things are not actually in the Bible. And while such does not mean statements or teachings in that category are not actually true, it does point to the tendency of mistaking fiction for truth, and attributing the fiction to having the authority of the Bible.[2]
Now, it is one thing to have differing interpretations of Scripture, differing in how to understand certain teachings in the Scriptures. But it’s another thing altogether to confuse blatantly fictional teachings with actual biblical teachings, weaving truth and fiction together—which, if you think about it is what is involved in the most effective lies. But it’s understandable how it happens (the temptation to elaborate on truth with imagination, or information from questionable sources), especially when it comes to dealing with many of the difficult passages of prophecy or passages that include things like the heavenly realities and heavenly beings spoken of in Revelation, Daniel, Ezekiel, Isaiah, and so forth. We can’t help but want to know more. We want to fill in the gaps the Scriptures do not fill, like defining, for example, the hierarchy of angels in a robust way—names and all. But we have to be very careful.
As it is, today, we’re looking at a vision of the apostle John, which he received circa. AD 65, while imprisoned on the isle of Patmos, during the great persecution of the emperor Nero, which had begun in AD 64. The vision continues from Rev. 12:1-6, which we studied a few months back.
So, let’s review vv. 1-6. There, in v. 1, John describes the sign of the woman, pointing to Old Covenant Israel in an idealized form, as the Lord’s wife. She was pregnant, and her birth pains and agony (leading to the birth of the Messiah) are described, the Seed of whom she carried until Mary gave birth to Jesus. This image of the woman/mother goes all the way back to the Garden of Eden, in Gen. 3:15, where the first gospel pronouncement was given, with the promise that the Seed of the woman (the Christ) would crush the head of the Serpent (the devil). Rev. 12:2 then brings to mind the labor and agony of Israel’s entire history, as the Old Covenant church travailed, to finally bring forth the promised Seed. And through her travails, she cried out, the prophetic word of the prophets, who bore witness to the birth of Christ.
Verse 3 speaks to the adversary, Satan, with v. 4 addressing the actions of his rebellion against the Lord, in heaven, and Satan’s fall with his angels who had joined with him in rebellion. And throughout history Satan and his minions warred against God’s people, in the war of the two seeds: in the larger sense, throughout the course of events from the time of the fall, in Genesis; and in the immediate sense, with Herod seeking to kill him when he was an infant. But despite all the attacks in history, where Satan was trying to either keep Christ from being born (with examples recorded throughout the OT), or kill him as soon as he was born, the Seed was preserved. So, in v. 5, Christ Jesus is born. Verse 5 then quickly telescopes his whole life and ministry on earth up to his ascension into heaven to his throne, the throne of God.
But, in v. 6, Satan, through his minions, continues to rage against Christ, by going after his people—the Christians. The woman, in v. 6, shifts focus from God’s people in their idealized Old Covenant existence to God’s people who are now in their New Covenant existence—both, in their time, under the Lord’s one Covenant of Grace. The mother church of Christianity, the Jerusalem church, is particularly in mind here, having headed the warning of Jesus, given in his prophetic discourse (Matt. 24:15-16; Luke 21:20ff.). They escaped from Jerusalem to the rough, desert wilderness of Perea, finding refuge at a place called Pella, which we know about from history (while likely finding refuge in other places, too) … and they escaped after the Roman General, Cestius Gallus, brought his armies to surround Jerusalem, and then withdrew (in the fall of AD 66).[3] In those events (the events of those times), the church of Jerusalem saw the signs Jesus prophesied in Luke 21:20-21. So, most of the Jerusalem church packed up and fled to safety afterward, with their exodus likely taking place quickly after but ongoing throughout that year, maybe even into early 67. Also, perhaps, more of the church fled after Vespasian surrounded the city with his armies and then withdrew in June of 69. But we know that some stayed to the end, as we discussed when we studied the two witnesses in Rev. 11:3. However, the bulk of the church escaped shortly before Vespasian, the conqueror, began his campaign against the Jews in the Land of Israel, per Nero’s order, in the Spring of AD 67. So, having heeded Jesus’ order, the church of Jerusalem escaped to God’s providentially prepared place, sojourning safely during the conquest of the nation throughout the 1260 days spoken of in Rev. 12:6 (which was the same as the 42 months mentioned in Rev. 11:2-3), which ended with Jerusalem’s destruction, in AD 70.
So we come to our passage today. Look again at vv. 7-8:
7 Now war arose in heaven, Michael and his angels fighting against the dragon. And the dragon and his angels fought back, 8 but he was defeated, and there was no longer any place for them in heaven.
Lord willing, we’ll look at the war in heaven in more detail in a couple of weeks. What I will say now is that John is not speaking of two armies facing off in heaven who then hack it out with swords to determine the victor. There is a strong symbolic element at work, in the text.
Now, as we look at these verses, the word “angels” is used in reference to both opposing armies. When we typically think of angels, perhaps what immediately comes to mind is a glowing, friendly-looking being, wearing a white robe with two soft and fluffy white wings on their back—or, in the case of fallen angels, a red, mean-looking being with horns and batlike wings, complete with a tail having a point. But there is a bit more to the term “angels” than such simplified, imaginary images. The premier Greek-English Lexicon, what we call the BDAG, defines the word “Αγγελος” (angel) as “messenger.” And there are two types of angels given. Definition one is about human angels, and definition two is about angels who are supernatural beings.[4]
As for the human angels (ἄγγελος), the BDAG defines them as “a human messenger serving as an envoy, an envoy, one who is sent” either by other humans or by God. [5] For example, in the Luke 9:52, it says, “he (Jesus) sent messengers (“angels” – using the plural form of ἄγγελος) ahead of him,” referring to people he sent ahead into Samaria to prepare for his arrival. Then, in Luke 7:24, it says, “When John’s messengers (angels) had gone,” referring to the men John the Baptist sent to ask Jesus if he was “the one to come.” The term in the Hebrew (the word מַלְאָךְ – mǎl·ʾāḵ) works similarly. For example, in Josh. 7:22, Joshua sent messengers (“angels”),” to search Achan’s tent. So, we see that human angels’ duties can go beyond just delivering a message. Further, the prophets were angels (messengers), such as Haggai is called, in Haggai 1:13. And John the Baptist is referred to as one in Matt. 11:10, which is a quote from Mal. 3:1. And you may remember back when we discussed the angels of the seven churches, in Rev. 1-3, we said the angels were “the messenger of the Lord’s Word for each church, the pastor, the preacher, himself an elder.” And I suggested we even know one of their names, the angel of the church in Ephesus, who would have likely been Timothy, at the time of John’s writing, circa. AD 65. And we considered how the angels sent to gather the elect with a loud trumpet call, mentioned by Jesus in his Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24:31) were “preachers, teachers, evangelists, and Christian witnesses in general.
Then, there are the supernatural, “spiritual” beings, who are angels. The BDAG defines such as “a transcendent power who carries out various missions or tasks, messenger, angel.” There are far more incidences of the word “angel” being used, in this category, than as a reference to humans. Thus, this is more what people assume when they hear the word, “angel,” often referred to as an angel or angels “from heaven”—heavenly messengers from God (like the angel (ἄγγελος) Gabriel to Mary). And such angels are also assigned various other tasks of service to the Lord, including ministering to the Lord’s people, and carrying out other varied commissions from God. Too, there is a particular being in Scripture, often called “the angel of the Lord,” who falls in a category all by himself, as he is YHWH, the Lord (Ex. 3:3-15, Judg. 2:1, and so forth). And then, of course, there are the fallen angels—the demons.
So think about that. The term angel, in the original languages, is applied across a spectrum. It is applied (in Scripture) to created beings—humans, the “heavenly angels” of various sorts, and demons. But the term is also, in some cases, used for the eternal God (not a created being), when he is referred to as “the angel of the Lord,” like when he appeared to Moses in the burning bush.
In any event, context supplies how we are to understand the use of the term. And I think that, in Rev. 12:7, the spectrum of angels is amply represented.
So, let us take a look at the first of the adversaries mentioned—Michael and his angels. Because Michael’s identity is critical to understanding the whole passage, we’ll look at it more closely than the others. As to who Michael is, John Calvin, along with a host of other scholars (including Philip Melanchthon, C.H. Spurgeon, John Gill, Matthew Henry, Milton S. Terry, and some more recent scholars like Kenneth Gentry, Philip Carrington, David Chilton, and Jay Rogers), are either sympathetic to the view that Michael is another name for the second person of the Trinity, or just flat out state it as such.[6] The International Bible Encyclopedia (in an article by John A. Lees) observes, “The earlier Protestant scholars usually identified Michael with the preincarnate Christ, finding support for their view, not only in the juxtaposition of the “child” and the archangel in Rev 12, but also in the attributes ascribed to him in Dnl.”[7] Interesting, too, The Geneva Study Bible (published in 1560, over 50 years before the KJV) flat out states as a fact (in the notes on Dan. 10:13 and 12:1) that Michael is Christ Jesus.
So Calvin, for example, made the statement (in his teaching on Daniel 12:1—and this quote is on the front of your bulletin) that “Michael may mean an angel; but I embrace the opinion of those who refer this to the person of Christ, because it suits the subject best to represent him as standing forward for the defence of his elect people.”[8] Calvin says a bit more on this, in his teaching on Daniel 10 and 12. But, the thrust of his analysis and opinion seems to be that Michael could be an angel (as some suggest), but the Scriptural evidence supports that Michael, spoken of in Daniel, is a reference to the second person of the Trinity, the Christ. As some point out, though, Calvin does leave the case open (with his first statement in the quote).
Now, my conclusion (after a time of consideration, having examined the Scriptures and the logic), is similar to Calvin’s. Yet, I am, perhaps, a bit less hesitant and more comfortable expanding on the doctrine (with consideration of Rev. 12), having observed that the Scriptural evidence seems to be strongly in favor of the understanding that “Michael” is a name for the Son of God.
Okay, before you toss me out or try to burn me at a stake, let me explain why I think that. And I’ll briefly address some of the objections brought up against such a notion. There are sincere Biblical scholars on both sides of the argument, and like Atticus says, “They’re … entitled to think that, and they’re entitled to full respect for their opinions.”[9] But let’s look at it.
First off, where do we find Michael in the Scriptures? Well, he is mentioned by name in five passages of Scripture: Rev. 12:7, Jude 9, Daniel 10:13, 21; and Daniel 12:1. In Jude 9, Jesus’ half-brother calls Michael “the archangel.” This is the only place in Scripture where the term “archangel” is applied to a specific being. Paul, of course, uses the term, in 1 Thess. 4:16, when he teaches that “the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel.” And how we understand that is considerably different if we understand who Michael is and what it means that he is “the archangel,” as Jude titles him. Michael is never referred to as “an angel.” He is “the archangel.” No one else is given that title in Scripture. And this makes sense when we understand “archangel,” with the “ἀρχ-“ prefix (from ἀρχή), is a title, meaning the “chief of the angels,”[10] or the “prince of angels”[11] or the “ruler of angels,” or the “first of angels.” Perhaps even, as Philip Carrington renders it, the “captain of the angels.”
In Rev. 12:7, the Prince of Angels leads his angels into battle, as the commander of the Lord’s army against the dragon and his forces. And who is the commander of the Lord’s Army? In Joshua 5:14, the commander of the army of the Lord specifically identifies himself as such. Joshua sees him as a man with a drawn sword. And what does Joshua do? He falls down on his face and worships him. Does the commander of the army of the Lord object? No, he accepts the worship, something only God can rightly do, which is why this is generally understood by scholars as a preincarnate appearance of the Son of God. And we know that Jesus, in the NT, has command over angels (c.f. Matt. 13:41 and 16:27). And consider, when Joshua asks what he should do, what does the commander say? He says, “Take off your sandals from your feet, for the place where you are standing is holy.” And this should ring a bell. Where do we see the same command? Yes, in Ex. 3:5, where the Angel of the Lord, who names himself as YHWH (the Lord) appears in the burning bush and says, “take your sandals off your feet, for the place on which you are standing is holy ground.”[12]
So Michael, in Rev. 12:7, the “prince of the angels,” is commanding the Lord’s army because he is the commander of the Lord’s army, and the commander of the Lord’s army is the Lord – “The Lord of Hosts.” And in several of the appearances of “The Angel of the Lord” in the OT, context makes it evident that he is a manifestation of the Lord.
Now, if you are wondering about the first chapter of Hebrews, note that the thrust of Heb. 1 is against a teaching that Jesus is a created angel. He is not a created angel, one who is of the “ministering spirits sent out to serve for the sake of those who are to inherit salvation.”[13] He is far superior than the angels, as he is the very Son of God, who sits at the right hand of the Father on the throne of God—ruler over all.
But against the idea that Michael is the Son of God, probably the best argument I’ve read is taken from Daniel 10:13. There, the angel speaking to Daniel refers to Michael (as your English Bible probably says) as “one of the chief princes.” But this argument against, in light of all the other evidences, doesn’t hold. The Scriptures let us know there is a hierarchy among the angels, and this verse speaks to that reality, of course. But, as we saw in Jude, Michael is “the archangel”—the prince of angels. So, how does this jive with the idea that he is “one of the chief princes” in Daniel 10:13? Well, like Young’s Literal Translation of the Bible puts it, the phrase can also be translated as “first of the chief princes.” For the Hebrew word for “one” also has the meaning “first,” which is how Matthew Henry translates it, in his commentary.[14] And this idea of “first” is similar to how we understand Christ Jesus to be the “firstborn” of all creation, in Col. 1:15-16, which says, “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.”
And, while the meaning of his name isn’t really a proof of his identity, in itself, the name Michael means “Who is like God?” So, who is like God? Only God. And Jesus is uniquely “the image of the invisible God.” He is, as J.B. Phillips puts it, “the visible expression of the invisible God.”[15] So, the name “Michael” seems to allude to what Paul says about Jesus, in Col. 1:15.
But was Jesus the first person to be born, as the firstborn? No, Paul says Jesus created everything, including the angels. Rather, the term speaks to rank. Paul, saying that Jesus is firstborn (even when he was born of the virgin Mary, long after Adam) is using terminology of his time that would be saying that Jesus has the highest rank. So, as firstborn of all creation, Jesus has “the highest rank in the universe.”[16] Among the princes of the universe, Jesus holds the highest rank. Thus he is first of the chief princes.
Then, in Daniel 10:21, Michael is referenced as being Daniel’s prince. And in Daniel 12:1, Michael is called “the great prince who has charge of your people.” He is the one who delivers God’s people. So, who is the ruler and deliverer of the people of God? Is it an angel? Absolutely not. The Lord is the ruler and deliverer of his people (Isa. 44:6). And it is Jesus who conquers Satan and his minions (Matt. 12:22-29; Col. 2:15 and Heb. 2:14-15), the latter which says,
“Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery.”
And, as Kenneth Gentry points out, “Rev. 12 is the First Introduction of Satan’s Demise. Why would that task be given over to an angel rather than being accomplished by Jesus himself?”[17]
There is a bunch more we could consider from the Scriptures (like how this fits with Jesus being the λόγος (the Word) in John 1:1, and “the faithful witness” in Rev. 1:5), but time precludes us today. But before we move on, let me address one more argument against Michael being Jesus. I’ve read people who point to Jude 9, saying that Jesus is God, so he doesn’t need to rebuke Satan by saying, “The Lord rebuke you.” And they point to Jesus rebuking Satan in the Scriptures, because, as Jesus is the Lord, he can just rebuke Satan himself. And this logic seems to make sense, unless you know that Zech. 3:2 says, “The LORD said to Satan, “The LORD rebuke you, Satan!” So, this argument fails.
Now, as we read through Rev. 12:1-6, as we come to v. 7, the flow of the passage would seem to have Jesus be the one who wars against Satan and is victorious. After all, the expectation going all the way back to Genesis 3:15 was that it would be the Seed of the woman who conquered the serpent. And the seed of the woman is Christ, so we expect Christ to be the one conquered Satan. As we saw in Rev. 12:1-6, the whole war of the seeds leads up to this point. It is the Seed of the woman who crushes the head of the serpent. And, as we’ve seen from other Scriptures, Christ conquers Satan. Yet, John, in his wonderful way, using numerous names and descriptions of Jesus in his Apocalypse, uses the name “Michael” instead of “Jesus,” which also hearkens to the events in Daniel 12. And so doing, John opens doors to a fuller understanding of our Lord Jesus, as we see him in Scripture, as things click together in our minds tying Christ to references in the Scriptures of Michael, and the Angel of the Lord, and the Commander of the Army of the Lord. And, perhaps knowing Jesus is Michael, the archangel, when we read of the Lord’s return, with a cry of command and with the voice of an archangel, we have a better understanding about what Paul is talking about, in 1 Thess. 4:16.
As for Michael’s angels, it seems that the full understanding of angels I discussed before comes into play. For how were the dragon and his angels defeated? Rev. 12:11 – “And they have conquered him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony, for they loved not their lives even unto death.” So the enemy is defeated by the blood of the Lamb and the gospel testimony. Thus, as Milton Terry puts it, the angels would include “his apostles, together with all the angelic forces in sympathy and cooperation from them.” [18] And it seems it would include the martyrs, evangelists, and the faithful Christians who risked their life for the sake of the gospel.
As for the Dragon and his angels, there is no doubt. The Dragon is clearly named as “that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world (in Rev. 12:9), and “the accuser of our brothers” (in v. 10). His angels would include the demons, of course, and likely human minions.
Alright, we’ll pick up there in a couple of weeks, Lord willing, and parse out the nature of this war in heaven, in Rev. 12:7ff.
So, my friends, as I’ve mentioned in the past, sometimes the teaching within a sermon is itself the application. Such, I think, is the case today. Answering the fallen condition focus of today, as we’ve looked at what the Scriptures actually teach about angels (both human and supernatural) and about the archangel Michael, particularly, you’ve seen how misconceptions about these things can taint our knowledge and understanding. These misconceptions are found in art, entertainment, and even serious studies of the Bible.
But consider it a lesson in questioning why. Why do we think something, whatever the doctrine or such? Where do the images in our heads about supernatural realities originate? And what do the Scriptures themselves actually reveal? As a faithful follower of Christ who truly wants to know God’s revelation and will, interrogate the Scriptures. Be cautious and don’t just take popular understandings of spiritual things for granted. Dig into them. There are so many tools today to do so—including books (in paper and digital) and apps to help in Bible study. Wonderful resources are easily acquired to help you really dig down in your studies of the Scriptures. And the internet itself is quite a resource, although it sometimes feels like you’re wrestling a bear when you engage. Just on the issues we’ve considered today, there are a plethora of discussions across the internet where people are genuinely asking questions and discussing answers.
So my friends, let us question, and be on guard against assumptions that are grounded in misconceptions. Let us do the work, and be alert for fictions intertwined with the truth, which, in the end, are just lies. Because Scripture lays out heavenly realities, Christians should look to them for the truth.
[1] The only statement that is validated as containing truth in 1 Enoch, is Enoch 1:9, found in Jude 15.
[2] This is why, when we consider Josephus’ histories (which we’ve looked at quite a bit in our studies on Revelation), we recognize he is giving his perspective on historical events, and in many cases recording what he himself saw and heard, as a contemporary (even at times first-person) witness. Thus, as a contemporary to first century events addressed in Revelation, his observations carry some weight and are quite helpful. But his writings do not carry authority like God’s Word. So we have to be careful when handling his work and look for the support of other witnesses, if possible. And his account of events of the Jewish War and such, at the most, can only be said to be consistent with, or inconsistent with, an interpretation of Scripture, and that the events he records as history may have been a fulfillment of Scriptural prophecy. And this is something we’ve been doing throughout our study of Revelation. We ask, how does history, as we have it recorded, corroborate with the truths and prophecies revealed in John’s Apocalypse?
[3] When I first preached this, I mistakenly copied an error into the sermon from earlier, saying “summer of 66.” This reflects the correction.
[4] In the NT, the term is used 175 times referencing either one type or the other.
[5] William Arndt et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 8. BDAG, s.v., “ἄγγελος” 1.
[6] This list is not exhaustive, yet it gives an idea of how this understanding has been held over the centuries by various scholars from different theological leanings and denominations. See fn. 8 for Calvin references.
Philip Melanchthon (Carl L. Beckwith, Timothy George, and Scott M. Manetsch, eds., Ezekiel, Daniel: Old Testament, vol. 12, Reformation Commentary on Scripture (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2012), 385, quoting from Melanchthon’s In Danielem Prophetam (1543), 214-16) states, “The prince, Michael, whom here and below is called the prince of the people of God, was present with the good angel. I understand him to be the very Son of God, the Logos, as he is named by John.”
C.H. Spurgeon mentioned his view in various sermons: (“Our Lord’s Transcendent Greatness,” preached 2 Dec. 1866, The Metropolitan Tabernacle, Newington) “You remember how our Lord, who is the true Michael, the only great Archangel, said at the beginning of the preaching of the Gospel, ‘I beheld Satan as lightning falling from Heaven;’” (“The Angelic Life,” preached 22 Nov. 1868, TMT) “We read that Michael and his angels fought against the dragon and his angels, and the dragon was cast down … Michael is the Lord Jesus, the only Archangel;” and (“The Blood of the Lamb, The Conquering Weapon,” preached 9 Sept. 1888, TMT) “We rejoice in our Lord Jesus Christ, the Michael of the angels, the Redeemer of men. For by Him we see Satan cast out and all the powers of evil hurled from their places of power and eminence.” You can find his sermons at https://www.spurgeongems.org/spurgeon-sermons/.
John Gill (Jude, vol. 3, An Exposition on the New Testament (London: Mathews and Leigh, 1809), 674), commenting on Jude 1:9, states “Yet Michael the archangel …. By whom is meant, not a created angel, but an eternal one, the Lord Jesus Christ.” And he continues proving it.
Matthew Henry (Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible: Complete and Unabridged in One Volume (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1994), 2477) explicitly equates Michael with Jesus in his comments on Rev. 12:7: “Michael and his angels on one side, and the dragon and his angels on the other: Christ, the great Angel of the covenant, and his faithful followers; and Satan and all his instruments. This latter party would be much superior in number and outward strength to the other; but the strength of the church lies in having the Lord Jesus for the captain of their salvation.” This understanding is also evident in various other references to Michael throughout his commentary.
Milton S. Terry (The Apocalypse of John, ed. Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr. and Jay Rogers (Chesnee, SC: Victorious Hope Publishing, 2021; originally pub. 1898), 160) states, “We accordingly understand ‘Michael and his angels’ to be here a symbolic designation of Christ and his apostles, together with all the angelic forces in sympathy and cooperation with them.”
Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr. (Survey of the Book of Revelation, Video Series (Chesnee SC: Victorious Hope Publishing, 2012), DVD 3, lesson 14) gives several proofs that “Michael is Christ.”
Philip Carrington (The Meaning of the Revelation (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2007),218-224) lays out a detailed argument as to why Michael is the Messiah/Christ. He emphasizes the point, stating, concerning Rev. 12:7 (220), “If Michael is not the Messiah, you are reduced to a condition of absolute confusion.”
David Chilton, The Days of Vengeance: An Exposition of the Book of Revelation (Fort Worth, TX: Dominion Press, 1990), 311-312, argues for Michael being Christ, and states (311) that “St. John’s symbolism is not casual; it is intentional, and very precise. He carefully chose to reveal Christ in terms of the specific Biblical connotations associated with Michael.”
Jay Rogers (In the Days of These Kings (Clermont, FL: Media House International, 2017), 473), commenting on Daniel 12:1, states unequivocally, “Michael the archangel is here symbolic of the Messiah, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Second Person of the Trinity.”
And while I didn’t reference him in the sermon (an oversight), John Wesley held to this belief, as evidenced in his commentaries on Daniel 10:13, 21; and 12:1 (https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/wen/daniel-10.html and https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/wen/daniel-12.html).
[7] John A. Lees, “Michael,” ed. James Orr et al., The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia (Chicago: The Howard-Severance Company, 1915), 2048.
[8] John Calvin, Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Daniel, vol. 2 (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2010), 369. Calvin also stated concerning Daniel 10:13, “Some think the word Michael represents Christ, and I do not object to this opinion” (Ibid., 253).
[9] Harper Lee, To Kill a Mockingbird (New York: Harper Perennial Modern Classics, 2006 / HarperCollins, Kindle Edition), 120.
[10] Carrington, 312.
[11] Max Zerwick and Mary Grosvenor, A Grammatical Analysis of the Greek New Testament (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1974), 739.
[12] Exodus 3:9.
[13] Hebrews 1:14.
[14] Matthew Henry, 1457.
[15] Max Anders, Galatians-Colossians, vol. 8, Holman New Testament Commentary (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1999), 283, quoting Phillips.
[16] Anders, 283.
[17] Gentry, Survey of the Book of Revelation, DVD 3, lesson 14.
[18] Terry, 160.