For Jehovah's Witnesses (honest question, not trying to set you up): is an archangel an angel, or not an angel?

Yes an archangel is an angel. My reference is here :

http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/study-bibl...

In the reference, three relevant points appear-

1. Angel in Hebrew means messenger. Archangels are certainly messengers of God.

(This is found under "angel")

2. Archangel, a different term, means "chief of the angels"

(As found under "archangel")

3. There is only one archangel mentioned in the 66 books of the inspired scriptures.

CONCLUSION:

Since only Jesus, besides his God Jehovah, is shown in the inspired scriprures to command the angels, he alone among Jehovah's creations can rightly be described as having the "voice" or authority of an archangel.

Reference:Bible glossary,NWT

I'm not one of those Jehovah's Witnesses, and never will be, but I'm wondering why you're asking this question. It's clear that an archangel is a type of angel, so why would you ask if it's not? I'm intrigued now. :)

Yes, an archangel is an angel. The word angel is incorporated into the word archangel.

Yes, they believe an archangel is an angel.

I find it very humorous the way some JWs are saying that the meaning of the word arch - "chief or principal" - suggests there can only be one. Such reasoning is demonstrably not true. Just as ancient cities had multiple "principal men" (Acts 13:50) and just as the ancient Israelite army had multiple "chief" soldiers in command of contingents of hundreds and of thousands of soldiers (Numbers 31:14), in the same way there can be multiple "principal" or "chief" angels in command of different contingents of angels.

The term archangel likely denotes an angel of high station having other angels under his command, and does not necessarily imply there can only be one.

The fact that the term archangel is used in the indefinite sense at 1 Thessalonians 4:16 ("AN archangel"), suggests that it is not a singular position held by one angel, but that there are multiple archangels.

Another clue to the fact that there are multiple archangels is the fact that whenever archangel is used in the definite sense ("THE archangel"), it is always qualified with a name - "Michael". Why is that?

If there were only one archangel then there would be no need to always mention the name "Michael" when the term "the archangel" is used. The only reason why the writer would want to always specify a name when using "THE archangel", is if he wants to single out a particular archangel from the group of archangels. If Michael were the only archangel then the writer would feel free to simply write "THE archangel" without ever having to give a name. But he never does so! The only time he uses "archangel" without a name is when archangel is used in the indefinite sense.

Daniel 10:13 proves that Michael is not the only archangel for in that text he is referred to as "ONE OF the foremost princes" and not "THE FOREMOST prince". Can you imagine a friendly commentator going out of his way to refer to the currently in office president of the USA as being "ONE OF the foremost leaders in the country" instead of more accurately and more easily saying that he is "THE president" or "THE highest leader"?

Finally, ancient Jewish culture which predates the writing of the NT, holds that there are multiple archangels. Daniel 10:13 certainly harmonizes with this belief and the NT certainly does not contradict it!

Yes. That means he is a creation of Jehovah God, but unique in being "the First born of all creation."

(Colossians 1:13-16) 13 He rescued us from the authority of the darkness and transferred us into the kingdom of his beloved Son, 14 by means of whom we have our release by ransom, the forgiveness of our sins. 15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 16 because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and on the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All other things have been created through him and for him.

To add to the discussion this point.

There is only one person spoken of as having "an archangel's voice".

(1 Thessalonians 4:15, 16) 15 For this is what we tell you by Jehovah’s word, that we the living who survive to the presence of the Lord will in no way precede those who have fallen asleep in death; 16 because the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice and with God’s trumpet, and those who are dead in union with Christ will rise first.

You have seen the discussions over here on who Michael the archangel is. That is the only name linked to an archangel. (the rest are the fairy tales of the Catholic church).

Notice Jesus' request on the last night before his execution.

(John 17:4, 5) 4 I have glorified you on the earth, having finished the work you have given me to do. 5 So now, Father, glorify me at your side with the glory that I had alongside you before the world was.

He wanted to return to his position of honor that he had before he came to the earth. He is a loving humble Son that rejoiced in doing his Father's will.

Yes....The prefix “arch,” meaning “chief” or “principal,” implies that there is only one archangel, the chief angel; in the Scriptures, “archangel” is never found in the plural.

An archangel is an angel. Michael, Gabriel, and Satan are archangels. Jesus is not. Jesus is of the same substance as God and was not created.

Greetings,

Yes, obviously an archangel is an angel.

The term "archangel" means "chief angel," or "principal angel." It occurs in the Bible only in the singular which indicates that there is only one. Michael is the only one ever called "archangel."

Jesus is an "angel" since the word just means "messenger" which is used of different ranks or natures of messengers. They could be human angels, heavenly spirit angels, or the only messenger directly created by God Himself. Human angels are not equal to angelic spirit angels, and neither are other angels equal to the ARCH-angel; the divine Son of God! As the "Word," Jesus is God’s messenger "par excellence."

So while an arch-angel is an angel, ordinary angels are not archangels. JWs have never viewed Jesus as "just an ordinary angel." He is separate and unique and above the other angels since he was a direct creation while all other angels were created *through* Christ.

In actuality most scholars recognize that Jesus is called an "angel" in the Bible. This is because most religions admit that Christ is the "Angel of the LORD" (the Lord's angel) in the OT. However, since Christ is the “Angel of God,” it proves that he cannot be that God, whose Angel or Messenger he is.

The scriptures show that Jesus was properly associated with the angelic host until he was elevated to a higher position (1Pt.3:22; Php.2:9-11; Mt.28:18; 1Cor. 15:27; Heb.1:4; Dan.7:13,14).

The LXX at Isaiah 9:6 LXX calls Christ an angelos–“angel of great council.” This is quoted by the early Church Fathers who also called Christ angelos. Christ is equated with an angel at Ga 4:14.

Many uninformed individuals try to use Hebrews 1:4 to claim that Jesus was not an angel because it says he “is better than the angels.” However, this does not exclude him from being an angel. In fact, the context of Hebrews 1:4 explicitly INCLUDES Christ as one of the angels. Vs 9 says that Christ was elevated above his "companions" (KJV, NIV, RSV). So, the terminology includes Christ one of the angels or messengers.

William Kinkade said: "Although this text abundantly proves that Christ is exalted above all other Messengers, it by no means proves that he never was a Messenger himself....The drift of the writer in the first chapter of Hebrews, was not to show that Christ was no Messenger, but to show that he was made greater than all the Messengers of God: therefore, when the above text is brought to prove that Christ never was an Angel, that is, a Messenger of God it is pressed into a service for which it was never designed by the writer."

He demonstrated his point with the parallel example: "If I were to say of General Washington that he was made superior to all the other officers, for to which of the officers was it ever said ‘thou art commander-in-chief,' and again they said ‘let all the officers obey him.' Therefore the government hath ‘exalted thee above thy fellows.'"

Kinkade pointed out that this could not be used to prove that Washington was not an "officer." Similarly, the statement in Hebrews cannot be used as evidence that Jesus was not an "angel."

We can also look at the statement: "The king is better than all men." Does this mean that the king is not a man? No. To claim otherwise would force an illogical opinion on this sentence like "the king is not a man and this proves it!"

So, Heb.1 is comparing Christ to all the angels who are of orders less than the only archangel. But the Son alone is the Archangel, the highest angelic creature.

When you reason on the actual words and their definitions in the Bible it is clear to see that Jesus was a messenger (angel) for God before he came to earth, while he was on earth and after he went back to heaven. This is clearly taught in the Scriptures.

Yours,

BAR-ANERGES

The Hebrews made it very specific that angels worship Jesus, God the Son: the jw writing is heretical. It is against the belief of other 2.4 billion Trinity God christians.