Lucifer vs. St Michael: Why St Michael Won!

Saint Michael was one of the lower angels. Lucifer was the highest angel. How did Lucifer fall and how did Saint Michael get his name (Mi Cha El?).

Here’s a free video from the New Saint Thomas Institute on the subject of Satan and Michael. You’ll learn about the creation of the angels, the fall of Satan according to Saint Augustine, and the reason Saint Michael is called “Mi Cha El.”

Don’t see the video? Click here to watch it.

Are you not yet a Member of the New Saint Thomas Institute? If not, this is the week to join. We are opening a few limited spots for Fall Enrollment and offering a limited time discount on NSTI tuition. Join well over 1,000 Members of the New Saint Thomas Institute from all over the world as we study Catholic theology together.

There are limited spots and our tuition sale is limited. We also have a bunch of great bonuses for this fall. Want to join? Learn by clicking here.

Share this post on Facebook.

Download My Book for Free
Thomas Aquinas in 50 Pages
Over 15,000 copies downloaded! This is a quick and easy way to learn the basic philosophy and theology of Saint Thomas Aquinas. The Popes of the last 300 years have endorsed St Thomas Aquinas. Learn more through this accessible resources. Download it for free.

Comments Policy: I reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive or off-topic. If your comment contains a hyperlink to another site, your comment automatically goes into "Comments Purgatory" where it waits for release by way of moderation.

  • JoeAllen

    The Book of Job tells us that the Spirit-Universe was created before the Physical Universe (Job 38: 4-7).

  • JoeAllen

    Michael was NOT one of the lower angels; he was an Archangel. In the Epistle of Jude 1:9 Michael is specifically referred to as an ARCH-ANGEL: “Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses.”

    • JohnServorum

      In fact, Taylor Marshal was correct when he said that Michael was one of the lower angels.
      In the order of the nine choirs of angels, Seraphim are the highest of all, followed by Cherubim, Thrones, Dominions, Virtues, Powers and only then, the Archangels, Principalities and Angels. Archangels therefore come seventh in the list of nine.
      Good for Taylor Marshal for pointing that out.

      • Mickey

        I don’t understand where “nine choirs of angels” comes from? I never heard of that.

        • JohnServorum

          The idea that there is a hierarchy of nine choirs of angels comes from Sacred Scripture and ultimately from Aquinas’ Summa Theologica.
          Aquinas wrote so much about the angels that he is called the Angelic Doctor. He is also called the Common Doctor because of the breadth of his knowledge about God and the Church.
          I only mention these things to explain why Taylor Marshall said that, being an archangel, Michael was originally one of the lower angels.
          Of course, the angelic hierarchy is speculative but it is certainly based on reasonable theological presumptions.

          • Mickey

            Not trying to be a pain, but what Sacred Scripture says that? I went to Catholic school for eight years as a kid. The nuns did not tell us that. I remember something about Michael being more powerful than a lower angel.

          • JohnServorum

            Two New Testament sources that mention the angelic hierarchy, at least in part, are Colossians 1:16 and Ephesians 1:21.
            The Old Testament of course is replete with verses related to the angelic hierarchy, listing Angels, Archangels, Cherubim and Seraphim.
            However, the idea was developed by Church Fathers and theologians over time and can be found in the works of writers from the time of Clement of Rome to Aquinas.
            All of the evidence taken together seems to indicate a hierarchy of angelic beings from Seraphim to Angels.
            I do seem to remember the religious sisters who taught us in Catholic grade school mentioning this idea.
            God bless.

        • John Servorum is correct. Archangel is “level 8” on a nine level system. The nine levels or choirs of angels come from Saint Paul’s epistles.

          • Mickey

            It does not make a lot of sense. I remember our nuns telling us Michael was a strong and powerful angel, and he was a prince of angels strong enough to fight. Putting him down to the bottom does not fit with what I learned.

          • He became the Prince of the Heavenly Host *after* he defeated Lucifer.

          • Mickey

            Where is that written? It sound different than what I was taught.

          • JoeAllen

            Mickey, I agree with your common-sense Christianity. Some people will tell you that it is important to know that exactly 962, not 961 or 963, angels can dance on the head of a pin.

          • Joe, who are the people who will tell us that? Did you know there is no evidence that any theologian has ever debated the “angels dancing on a pin’s head” question? It was an insult derived in later centuries to attack Scholasticism. Although, if you think about it, it IS a good question, isn’t it? It basically asks “what is the relationship between non-material beings and the material world?”

          • Dr. Marshall, my understanding is that Michael, Gabriel and Raphael are three of the Seven “angels who stand before the Lord” (i.e. Seraphs) mentioned in the book of Tobias. The archangels are guardians of the nations, and Michael was given the job of guarding Israel (which it was fitting to give to a Seraph for they are God’s people) and later of guarding the Church (the NT Israel). Thus, in this reading, Michael would be both a Seraph and an Archangel. I believe Thomas notes that each Angel is basically equivalent to its own species (without matter to deferential between members of the same species, there can’t be two of any species of angel). If that is true the “choirs” would be more like “jobs” than like “types of angels” with each angel basically being its own “type”. That would explain how Michael could have two “jobs” and thus belong simultaneously to two “choirs.”

          • JoeAllen

            Dr. Marshall, please respond to Mickey. You rightly want us to justify are “claims” … .

            Connecting dots is one thing, but you should at least provide us with your dots … .

      • JoeAllen

        Compare Arch-Bishop with Bishop. Arch means CHIEF. And Arch-Angel is a title given to Michael. None of your titles were given to a specific angel. Is the Pope the Arch-Bishop of Rome … ???

        Wiki says your hierarchies are HIGHLY SPECULATIVE as follows: “Pseudo-Dionysius (On the Celestial Hierarchy) and Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologica) drew on passages from the New Testament, specifically Ephesians 1:21 and Colossians 1:16, to develop a schema of three Hierarchies, Spheres or Triads of angels, with each Hierarchy containing three Orders or Choirs. Although both authors drew on the New Testament, the Biblical canon is relatively silent on the subject. Thus these hierarchies are highly speculative.”

        • So we have St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine, and Dionysius (and Dr. Marshall) on the one hand and Wiki and Joe Allen on the other. Hmmmm….

          • JoeAllen

            But Nathan718, where does Jesus stand on this critical topic … ???
            Jesus decided that this important topic deserved NOT one second of his time. I agree with Jesus.

        • Wiki may say that, but Saint Gregory the Great (Hom. 34, In Evang.) says otherwise:

          “We know on the authority of Scripture that there are nine orders of angels, viz., Angels, Archangels, Virtues, Powers, Principalities, Dominations, Throne, Cherubim and Seraphim. That there are Angels and Archangels nearly every page of the Bible tell us, and the books of the Prophets talk of Cherubim and Seraphim. St. Paul, too, writing to the Ephesians enumerates four orders when he says: ‘above all Principality, and Power, and Virtue, and Domination’; and again, writing to the Colossians he says: ‘whether Thrones, or Dominations, or Principalities, or Powers’. If we now join these two lists together we have five Orders, and adding Angels and Archangels, Cherubim and Seraphim, we find nine Orders of Angels.”

          • JoeAllen

            I’m surprised that Jesus didn’t spend ONE SECOND on this “critical topic” … ??? At best, it is one wild speculation standing atop many amorphous speculations.

          • That Jesus didn’t spend “ONE SECOND” on this topic is itself “highly speculative.” We know many things Jesus did spend time on, but we don’t know which topics He didn’t (cf. Jn 21:25).

          • JoeAllen

            Nathan, good point. My inference was clearly defective.

            I am now wondering how Angels, who are spirit-creatures, battle one another. And also, was the rebellion, in fact, class-warfare: the lower-class blue-cllar angel VERSUS the upper-class Harvard angels … ???

          • Facetiousness ill becomes you, Joe Allen. How do non-material angels battle one another? With their minds. And no, angels from all orders defected.

          • JoeAllen

            Nathan, thanks for your many good and sincere insights.
            In all honesty, my long-time “belief” is that God, not mere angels, drove Satan and Satan’s followers out of “Heaven”; moreover, I have always believed that St. Michael (Who is like God) was/is none other than the Word of God, YAH-Shua Ham-Ma-chi-ac.

          • Joe,
            Are you a JW? 1 Thess 4:16 is only saying that the Second Coming will be heralded by an Archangel’s cry and trumpet blast. In no sense does the text require Jesus Himself to either be an Archangel (or have the voice of an archangel) or to be playing a Trumpet Himself. As a matter of fact, it would be rather odd for a Lord to be heralding himself. If you think back to the ancient world lords and kings would enter cities not themselves playing trumpets and crying out, but with their servants doing so. Such is the context assumed in 1 Thess. Besides, where do you make the leap from “an ARCH-ANGEL” to “Michael”? Do you believe Michael is the only archangel? If so, what do you make of Gabriel?

          • JoeAllen

            I am NOT a JW but have several friends who are. Their big problem is NOT realizing the Bible was written during the Roman DICTATORSHIP. Consequently, a JW treats the government and elections as the instruments of Satan.

            Gabriel is NOT called an Arch-Angel in the Bible, because Gabriel is just an angel.

            I think 1 Thess clearly states that Jesus will speak with a voice beyond the voice of humans or angels. It is the Voice of the Word, NOT the voice of an Angel, that will resurrect you and me from the dead.

          • I never said the voice of an archangel will raise the dead. 1 Thess 4:1 says that Christ’s return will be accompanied by the cry of command, the voice of an archangel, and the trumpet of God. It goes on to say the dead will rise, but that doesn’t mean the archangel’s voice is the cause of the rising of the dead any more than the trumpet of God is. You also didn’t answer how you make the leap from “the voice of an archangel” to “the voice of Michael.” “AN archangel” would suggest that there are others. If there was only one archangel, and that archangel was Jesus, why even bother mentioning “an archangel’s voice?” Why not just say “with the voice of God?” Angels are clearly created spiritual beings, you are not a JW, are you an Arian? Do you think Jesus is created not begotten of the Father?

          • JoeAllen

            Jesus is the only begotten Son of God, our King, and Mary will reign with him, at his request, as our Queen-Mother, just as Bath-Sheba ruled jointly with Solomon, at the request of Solomon.

            Recall that Jesus has a powerful voice: “Lazarus, come out!” When Lazarus came out of the tomb, Jesus told the people to remove his grave clothes.

          • You’ll get no dispute from me on anything you wrote there, but I don’t see how “Jesus has a powerful voice” equals “Jesus has an archangel’s voice”. Are you suggesting that only archangel’s have powerful voices? That would seem to be a necessary premise in your argument to get to your conclusion.

          • JoeAllen

            Gosh, Nathan, you have to put yourself in the minds of the Hebrews, some 3000 years ago. Their words for an Angel were “messenger of/from God”; they did NOT even know enough to think of Angels as Spirit-Creatures, per se. Sometimes Angels appeared with human bodies.

            Honestly, you remind me of the well educated and intelligent Nicodemus. Nic was a good and devout Pharisee who believed in the Resurrection and who liked Jesus. However, when Jesus told Nic that a person must die and then be Resurrected (born again from above) to enter the Kingdom of God, Nic was confused and bewildered. Nic asked: “Must I re-enter my mother’s womb … ???”

            As for me, I am like the “Woman at the well”; I am a broken fool and a failure, but I can follow the plain and simple words of Jesus and the Bible.

          • Thanks for the backhanded complement. How exactly have I “put myself in the minds of the Hebrews?” By denying the identity of Jesus & Michael? I don’t see how that follows. As you rightly point out an angel is a “messenger FROM God” but Jesus isn’t God’s messenger, He IS God. Lastly, I’m not sure I’d call your exegesis of 1 Thess “plain and simple.” I can come home with the cry of a car horn (maybe I’ll even try that tonight), does that make me a car? Your exegesis could be used just as well to ‘prove’ that Jesus is a trumpet, since that is another sound that accompanies His arrival. Surely you can at least see how my interpretation is as plausible as yours or do you hold 1 Thess can only possibly mean Jesus = Michael?

          • JoeAllen

            Please read about the sophisticated Nicodemus in Chapter 3, and then about the lowly “woman at the well” in Chapter 4 of John’s Gospel. Nicodemus was a member of the powerful Sanhedrin; a majority on the Sanhedrin wanted to KILL Jesus because they thought he was a rebel who wanted to replace the Sanhedrin with the Kingdom of God. Jesus told Nic that the Sanhedrin should “have NO fear because my Kingdom is NOT of this world.”

            As for the “super Angel” named Michael, you and Dr. Marshall are mis-reading his Hebrew name. His name is NOT a question; his name is a declaration of fact, similar to “I am the one WHO IS LIKE GOD”; no other so-called Angel makes such a profound claim.

          • Sorry, apparently sharing a link gets a comment stuck in the moderation queue. Here is my reply devoid of all links:

            Joe, I know you are happily comparing yourself to a faithful person from the Bible (one who witnesses to Christ) and me to someone who couldn’t grasp Jesus’ meaning, but that is just begging the question – assuming your right. If your interpretation of 1 Thess is wrong, then you are like “Nic” and I like the woman. IOW, your comparison is nothing more than saying “I’m right and you’re wrong.” Shall we just leave that aside, then? Or do you want to continue to explore the comparison?

            As for your reading of 1 Thess to mean Jesus is Michael, do you think a “simple and plain” understanding of Scripture would be one that only a tiny percentage of Christians have ever understood? The overwhelming majority of Christians (including the great minds of the Church and the humble) no not share your understanding of that passage. You didn’t answer my question above, is my interpretation (the one held by almost all Christians for the last 2000 yrs) not at least as plausible as yours?

            As far as the meaning of “Michael” it isn’t just I and Dr Marshall that disagree with you, it (again) is pretty much everyone, including translators of the OT. For example, on New Advent, the article on St Michael begins with mentioning that Michael means “who is like God.”Do you have any source anywhere that backs up your novel translation of MICHAEL?

            Even if we assume your translation is correct, it still doesn’t show an equivalence between Jesus and Michael, does it? Jesus isn’t “like God” Jesus IS God. What sense would it make for God to carry the name “like God?” Do you not believe that Jesus is “true God from true God, consubstantial with the Father?” Do you instead believe He is merely “like God?” If so, how can His death have bridged the gap between sinful man and sinless God? It would seem that only if Jesus is both God and man can our sins be forgiven through His crucifixion. Are we then “still in our sins?”

            You mentioned how you are like the humble woman at the well, while I am the educated, but confused Nicodemus. Do you really think it is humble to say basically everyone who has ever studied this, including those who translate Hebrew into English for a living, are ALL wrong while Joe Allen is right? That doesn’t sound much like the woman at the well and “plain reading of Scripture” to me. Does it to you?

          • JoeAllen

            You are such a good man, just like Nicodemus. Nic did eventually develop a very deep understanding of Jesus.

            I have to take care of some personal business, so I will be rather inactive for about a month. Hopefully, we can continue our conversation with Dr. Marshall in the future.

            I pray that MirYam will watch over you and Taylor Marshall.

          • May God bless you, Joe. I do hope your personal business isn’t anything too serious. Thanks for the conversation.

          • KateGladstone

            Re:
            “His name is NOT a question; his name is a declaration of fact, similar to ‘I am the one WHO IS LIKE GOD’; ”

            No, it isn’t.
            I speak and write Hebrew, and Taylor Marshalland Nathan718 are correct.

            That importan littlr “mi-” in “Mi-Cha-El” is the interrogative pronoun (“who”-for-questions, as in “Who stole my car?”). So?

            In English — but NOT in Hebrew — the interrogative pronoun in such sentences is the same as the relative pronoun (“who”-for-adding-information, as in “He’s the one who stole my car”). In Hebrew, the relative pronoun is always either “asher” or its short form “she-“: never, EVER “mi-“… so?

            So … In Hebrew, “mi-” is ALWAYS, ALWAYS interrogative: it’s always the question, nevrrpper the answer.

            “Michael” is a question, and Joe Allen’s answer is a misunderstanding.

          • JoeAllen

            Kate, thanks for the correction, but I have a follow-up question.
            Since the English version can be read either way, what is the Hebrew version that would make WHO IS LIKE GOD, a declaration … ???

          • KateGladstone

            The one that would mean “who is like God” as a statement (rather than a question) would be “She-cha-El” or “Asher-cha-El” if such a name existed (which it doesn’t, as far as I know).

          • JoeAllen

            Shalom and God bless you for answering my question.

          • davepinoy

            Anthropomorphic models doesnt represent transcendent reality…Those who wants to unnecessarily speculate/reduce a reality beyond space and time is well advised to show their humility and admit that is beyond the realm of a finite mind and beyond what was not revealed by scripture and tradition. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR MEN TO EVEN FATHOM THE REALITIES OF PHYSICAL NATURE WHAT MORE OF SOMETHING BEYOND SPACE AND TIME..SPIRITUAL BEINGS ARE NOT LIMITED BY SPACE AND TIME THAT INCLUDE GOD AND HIS FIRST CREATION, THE ANGELS…LETS KEEP IT AT THAT…

          • 1. The Choirs are a part of tradition, so Dr Marshall (and St Augustine and Thomas Aquinas) haven’t gone “beyond Scripture and Tradition) here. Or do you consider everything not explicitly in the Bible to be “not a part of tradition?”

            2. Who is using an anthropomorphic model here? Where have I suggested anything anthropomorphic about God or the angels?

            3. Wouldn’t you agree that while it is impossible to plumb the depths of the reality of God (and probably of the angels) for our finite minds that doesn’t equate with not being able to know anything at all about them? Surely, we can know a lot about God (even through reason alone), can’t we?

          • Be careful to declare what Jesus did or did not teach:

            John 21:25

            25 But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.

            Not everything He taught was written in the Four Gospels.

          • JoeAllen

            You are correct. I apologize for making a bad inference.

          • Andreas

            Most Honourable Dr. Marshall,

            I apologize deeply for writing this question here but I am at a rush and know not when the ticket submitted at NSTI Support will be answered.

            My name is Norbert Andreas Z. from Austria, though I am currently residing in Lima, Peru. I have decided to take a Premium Membership at NSTI and study at your prestigious Institute. For this reason I would like to ask a very important question:

            I currently do not have a Credit Card, only a Debit Card, yet a relative of mine, specifically my father, would like his Credit Card to be used for my study. Nevertheless, since his Credit Card account is evidently in his name, will I be able to use my name for everything related to the Institute, including Certificate, or must I utilize a separate Credit Card myself or can I use my Debit Card, alternatively?

            Additionally, I would like to briefly ask if the Certificate of Mastery in Theology is issued in Latin and with the name of your prestigious Institute awarding it, as was advertised.

            Thank you very much for your swift reply and help.

            With kind regards,

            Z. N. A.

  • Victor

    ((( Lucifer vs. St Michael: Why St Michael Won! )))

    Doctor Marshall, I’m glad that you wrote this although, I’ve always believed since a child that GOD (Good Old Dad) created The Angels “FIRST” and I am also now sure that He also gave them “Free Will”… and of course I hope that because of this writing of yours, it will make it easier for many others to believe in GOD’s Angels. “I” could probably write a book on this topic alone of how Michael protects all of US (usual sinners)… How Gabriel announces some of what was learned from GOD… and how; Raphael guides us but then sinner vic and his so called alien gods would only consider “IT” as “Make Believe” unless he gets the credit for “IT” so why bother with “IT”?…LOL 🙂
    God Bless

    • JoeAllen

      Yes, God first created the Spirit-Universe and placed Lucifer in charge. Next, God created the Physical-Universe, and Lucifer expected to be placed in charge of it also.

      When God placed Adam and Eve in charge of the Physical-Universe, Lucifer rebelled and declared WAR on Adam and Eve and their descendants. Every human death is in fact an ingenious MURDER by Lucifer/Satan (Hebrews 2: 14). Satan’s goal is our extermination. Satan made NO exception for Jesus because Jesus, while truly divine, was also truly Human.

      Jesus will return on the LAST DAY, on the day when Satan succeeds in exterminating Humanity (I think we are getting close). Jesus will then set up his kingdom and will Resurrect murdered Human into his new kingdom where there will be NO more death and tears.

  • JoeAllen

    Proof that … Jesus = Michael the Arch-Angel:

    1 Thessalonians: “For 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. And the dead in Christ will rise first.”

    • Joe,

      See my comment above. God bless.

    • Victor

      Joe… by the way, I like that name and I’m not just saying that because my older brother’s name was Joseph but every body simply called him Joe. I could also write a book about how The “Devil” who lived back word, “I” mean backward, took two tries in order to kill his flesh and truth be known, Satan only succeeded with the help of Joe’s humanity cells and long story short YA simply need to talk to some of the birds, “I” mean Robin who Will…. “I” mean, his nano nano spiritual angel species cells might explain “IT” to YA …and………………………………………………………….and………………………..
      …and…

      END YA SAY sinner vic? DON’T BE LIKE THAT! BE NICE NOW!

      Go figure brothers and sisters in Christ nowadays…

      God Bless

      • JoeAllen

        Vic, I am having trouble understanding your comments.

        God bless us all, especially Dr. Marshall who has given us this wonderful forum.

        • Victor

          ((( Vic, I am having trouble understanding your comments.

          God bless us all, especially Dr. Marshall who has given us this wonderful forum. )))
          So true! Let’s keep praying for each others
          Thanks for your honest comment
          God Bless

      • KateGladstone

        What are you trying to write?

    • KateGladstone

      Re:
      “Arch-Angel was the Hebrew way of saying “One who is above the Angels”;

      No, it wasn’t (and isn’t) the Hebrew way of saying _anything_. It’s a term of Greek origin.

      The Hebrew way of saying “archangel” (or as close as Hebrew gets to having a way of saying “archangel” is “mal’akh ha-panim” — literally “angel of the face” — but meaning something “angel who has direct access to God’s presence”: which is considered to mean an angel of the higher levels, but doesnt get more specific than that. (There is no completely agreed-upon Jewish opinion, so far as I know, about how many levels of angel there are, or what the different levels should be called, which makes it difficult to translate exactly and understandably into Hebrew the nine-level scheme that is under discussion here. Different sources within Judaism claim different numbers of levels, and don’t agree on what names to give them, or in what order the levels are in.)

      Before discussing how another language expresses anything, it is important to actually _know_ that language, at least a little bit.

      • JoeAllen

        Shalom. MirYam would be proud of you.
        It is strange that both Catholic and Protestant translations of the Bible, you the expression ARCH-ANGEL. And stupid me, I relied on their translations.
        PS: You should have been a lawyer or a MD working for the CDC.

        • KateGladstone

          l wish Dr. Marshall would tell us what his Hebrew studies have been. I asked him this, some months ago, because of something he asserted in his book about Christmas, but he never answered that e-mail (although his secretary brought it to his attention).

          • JoeAllen

            Thanks for your wonderful scholarship. You are a living treasure. Please continue to contribute your expertise to this forum.

          • KateGladstone

            You are ev’ry kind, Joe! If you want, ask me privately what was the thing I was asking Dr. Marshall about. I’m at handwritingrepair@gmail.com

  • wondersunknown

    How could Lucifer be defeated and cast from heaven to earth on the first day when the earth was not created on the first day?

  • headonstraight

    “Lucifer” is mentioned but once in the Bible, specifically in Isaiah 14:12 and in the context of that passage it is a scornful term identifying Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon. As mentioned in the Isaiah passage, the term is NOT a proper name, but means “light bearer.” Modern English translations have largely–and appropriately– abandoned the use of “Lucifer” here. Nevertheless, it is difficult to break an old raccoon of sucking eggs and it is equally difficult to dislodge careless theologians from invoking a name for Old Scratch that is decidedly not a Biblical name for the varmint.