8

I am currently studying the origin of an uncommon Christian belief that the angel Michael mentioned in the Jewish Bible (Daniel 12:1) is the same person as Jesus. It is becoming a frustrating mystery that ends at John Calvin who says only that "some think" this.

So I thought to start at the beginning. Christians think that Jesus was/is the Messiah. Judaism holds that the Messiah has not come yet, but will one day. So it's not a stretch that the idea that Michael is the messiah, whether having come or not, might have originated with a group of Jews.

Are there are any ancient Jewish sects that taught that Michael was the messiah in some way? If there are none then are there any modern Jewish sects that teach that?

I am a Christian and know very little about modern Jewish customs and preferred terms so please forgive me if I step on any toes. Also feel free to correct me and enlighten me.

Feel free to retag this if necessary.

Community
  • 1
  • 7
    I doubt there's any way to prove that there was never any ancient group of Jews who believed this, but I highly doubt that such a group ever existed. The messiah must be a person, and a descendent of King David. An angel would be neither of these things. – Daniel Aug 27 '13 at 19:35
  • Why would you think that, because John Calvin wrote (where?) that "some think" that, that "it would not be a stretch" that the idea "might have originated with a group of Jews"? I don't see how one correlates to the other at all. In my mind it's a huge leap. – Seth J Aug 27 '13 at 20:24
  • 1
    @SethJ I linked to my research in the OP. John Calvin's quote and link is there. I have gained the impression that this particular belief might be much older than Calvin and may have started with Gnostic Christians, but often Gnostic Christians took cues from Gnostic Jews that had been around centuries before Jesus. Further, Christianity takes much of what it believes from ancient Judaism; there is no reason to not investigate the possibility that this belief is from an obscure, ancient Jewish sect. –  Aug 27 '13 at 20:52
  • @Daniel I realize the nature of the question excludes the negative response, however, I have no other starting point to investigate this. Obviously, the angel in question would have to be incarnated, like the Christians say that Jesus was. –  Aug 27 '13 at 20:55
  • 3
    @fredsbend The concept of angels becoming incarnated in the manner that Christians say Jesus was incarnated does not exist in any stream of Judaism, AFAIK. Not to say that it doesn't exist in any stream... but it probably doesn't exist in any stream. – Daniel Aug 27 '13 at 21:43
  • 4
    @fredsbend FYI, Seth and I are not criticizing the investigation of the possibility that the belief comes from an obscure Jewish sect. We (or at least I) simply disagree that such a possibility is likely, or even particularly plausible. – Daniel Aug 27 '13 at 21:45
  • @Daniel And I must concede to your greater knowledge on this subject. It seems like this might be a dead end. Maybe someone will come up with something. –  Aug 27 '13 at 21:54
  • 2
    This isn't an answer, just a supposition--perhaps frb read say, Enoch 3, which has a man turning(promoted?)into an angel, and is wondering if there's any tradition anywhere of the reverse being possible...? I couldn't find anything in my limited travels on it. It couldn't be the Messiah, due to all the other posted reasons, but maybe there is a story somewhere of an angel being changed to a man..It sounds like a plot of an old TCM movie... – Gary Aug 28 '13 at 20:59
  • Interesting, the answers below show rather that the idea of four "archangels" Michael, Gabriel, Uriel and Raphael comes from Jewish Talmud teachings, and has influenced Catholics and Protestant teachings. Whereas, the belief that Micheal is another name of Jesus, and that he is not an angel at all (but the chief of angels) is more unique. – Beestocks Mar 28 '20 at 19:18
  • @Beestocks I never did get to the bottom of this. Perhaps a more academically minded Judaism forum would be more helpful. Either way, it's such a rare belief in Christianity that I'm not sure what I'd be solving other than my own curiosity. –  Mar 28 '20 at 22:12
  • @3178: The belief you mention is itself based on something else entirely; namely, in Christianity, the Messiah is (also) believed to be the incarnation of God's word (John 1), and this divine logos is itself further identified with the angel of the Lord. You will most likely get a better understanding of this topic by reading ancient patristic writings, since it is, at best, only tangentially related to Judaism proper. –  Jun 18 '20 at 16:23

2 Answers2

13

This answer demonstrates that the messiah must be human. See also Sanhedrin 98a in the Babylonian talmud, which -- in the midst of a discussion of signs that the messiah has come -- calls the messiah the "son of David" several times. "Son of David" -- that is, a Jewish man descended from King David. A man, not a supernatural being. From the Soncino translation:

R. Johanan also said: The son of David will come only in a generation that is either altogether righteous or altogether wicked. ‘in a generation that is altogether righteous,’ — as it is written, Thy people also shall be all righteous: they shall inherit the land for ever. ‘Or altogether wicked,’ — as it is written, And he saw that there was no man, and wondered that there was no intercessor; and it is [elsewhere] written, For mine own sake, even for mine own sake, will I do it.

And also this (ibid, 98b):

Rab Judah said in Rab's name: The Holy One, blessed be He, will raise up another David for us, as it is written, But they shall serve the Lord their God, and David their king, whom I will raise up unto them: not ‘I raised up’, but ‘I will raise up’ is said. R. Papa said to Abaye: But it is written, And my servant David shall be their prince [nasi] for ever? — E.g., an emperor and a viceroy.

But, you might say, maybe angels are also human so Michael could still qualify? But angels are not humans and cannot be. One proof of this is in the g'mara on Shabbat 88b-89a, which relates how when Moshe ascended Mount Sinai to receive torah, the angels in the heavenly court challenged God. "How can you give Your holy torah to mere humans?" they asked. God told Moshe "answer them", and Moshe proceeded through several of the commandments, asking the court if they were capable of fulfilling them. Do you work, that you need to refrain on Shabbat? Are you capable of forming the intent to murder? Do you have relations that you could commit adultery? Do you even have fathers and mothers that you could honor them? In the end the angels conceded that the torah belonged to men, not them. From this we learn that angels are not men, else they would have been able to claim torah for themselves.

How do we know that Michael is an angel when the book of Daniel, where he is named, does not say so explicitly? We know this from the midrash. Bamidbar Rabbah 2:10 names the four "arch-angels" and describes their functions. This is not their only mention in rabbinic writing; for example, B'reishit Rabbah records that Michael was one of the angels who visited Avraham (specifically the one who announced the birth of Yitzchak). This article provides more sourced details while remaining accessible.

It's hard to prove a negative; quite possibly some Jew, somewhere, has believed what you ask about. But it is not a belief that has survived in Jewish sources and, since it runs counter to core Jewish theology, it would need to come with a pretty strong supporting argument.

Community
  • 1
Monica Cellio
  • 56,645
  • 10
  • 113
  • 348
  • Also because Jude and Revelation do explicitly call him an angel, I'd assume there are some pre-NT writings which do as well. – curiousdannii May 13 '15 at 01:29
  • There is a midrash which has God turning angels into humans. The Yalkut Shimoni on Noah 44 brings a story preceding the flood where angels who complained to God about humanity were subsequently given an evil inclination and went on to sin. Obviously this has nothing to do with messiah, but it might negate your approach. And @Shalom 's for that matter. – user6591 May 13 '15 at 01:38
  • @user6591 I don't know that midrash, but it sounds like it strengthens my case: if God turned (certain) angels into humans, doesn't that tell us that by default they're not? Or does that midrash claim that God turned all angels into humans? (From your comment it doesn't sound like it, but maybe I'm misunderstanding you.) – Monica Cellio May 13 '15 at 01:41
  • @MonicaCellio I'd still be interested to find out who first called Michael an angel, because the NT texts just assume everyone already understood him to be one. It's probably from 1 Enoch. – curiousdannii May 13 '15 at 01:45
  • @curiousdannii you might want to ask that as a separate question. It's kind of tangential to this question but it sounds important to you. – Monica Cellio May 13 '15 at 01:47
  • @Monica Agreed as angels, they are not human. I think my thinking was swayed by a comment on the question addressing incarnation of angels. If the op did mean that than my questing stands. If not, than I agree angels are not man. The gemara has a list of ways angels and man differ. – user6591 May 13 '15 at 01:50
  • @user6591 well, if an angel were incarnated he'd still not be of the house of David. Unless you say that that too could be changed miraculously, but at that point we'd have no way to vet a messiah claimant and God wouldn't do that to us. So I'm going to go with the simpler explanation that the signs we've been told about apply. – Monica Cellio May 13 '15 at 01:54
  • @Monica agreed, again. But that would be a different answer. Btw from Chagiga 16a we also see differences between humans and angels. (And shades and animals for that matter). – user6591 May 13 '15 at 01:59
  • 2
    This is definitely better than the other answer, thank you. For a "no" answer to suffice in my mind, I would like to see you support better the historic notion that the messiah must be a normal, natural born human. A few quotes from ancient sources demonstrating that it was the predominant belief at various times would be enough (i.e. from 1000 BC, 500 BC and 0). Obviously, a "yes" answer would find a source that says something related. –  May 13 '15 at 03:11
  • Incarnation takes two forms from the myths I'm familiar with: 1) The spirit is given an adult human body that a) manifests from nothing, b) is mysteriously made from clay or something or c) is the body of a different person (i.e. possession). 2) The spirit is made at conception of a child or more appropriately, the spirit fills the body of a conceived child and is rightly part of that lineage. The second option would suffice in "being from the line of David". It is also pretty much exactly the Christian version of incarnation. –  May 13 '15 at 03:15
  • I'm not trying to argue that such a belief is reasonable, only that it can be explained somewhat reasonably. –  May 13 '15 at 03:16
  • @fredsbend I added some quotes from the talmud. These are from the g'mara, so probably c.200-500 CE. This is the first writing-down (AFAIK) of an older oral tradition. We consider that oral tradition to be reliable. – Monica Cellio May 13 '15 at 03:54
  • @fredsbend the "possession" version of incarnation, but arguing that the identity goes with the body (so, e.g. Michael the angel possesses a descendant of David and that works) is a non-starter in Judaism. I'm not going to go digging for sources (that feels like a new question anyway), but the identity goes with the soul. An angel inhabiting the body of a descendant of David, even were such a thing to happen, would be the angel, not the descendant of David. – Monica Cellio May 13 '15 at 14:11
6

No, no, and no.

The Jewish messiah needs to be a flesh-and-blood paternal descendant of King David.

See the answers to this question for more details.

Community
  • 1
Shalom
  • 132,602
  • 8
  • 193
  • 489
  • 4
    There are no sects that say the messiah may have pre-existed, meaning, he existed before he will become flesh and blood? There are no sects that say he does not have to be flesh and blood? This seems like a knee-jerk reaction instead of an answer. –  Aug 27 '13 at 18:58
  • 1
    It is an answer. The Jewish messianic notion is that we wait a coming human king. A man from a particular lineage who espouses and epitomizes certain beliefs and traits. If he existed before he is to be flesh and blood, then he did as we all did -- as a soul, but he is therefore not unique in that. – rosends Aug 27 '13 at 19:24
  • @fredsbend, to the extent that groups of ethnic Jews may have believed in the Christian notion of a non-human "Messiah," their belief systems would be outside Mi Yodeya's scope. The answers to the question I added a link to in the answer provide ample evidence that this notion is foreign to Judaism. – Isaac Moses Aug 27 '13 at 20:15
  • 3
    @fredsbend, your idea assumes first and foremost that the Messiah will be an almost mythical entity and you want to reverse engineer it to find its source. That is fine, of course, but just know that the Jewish idea of the Messiah is very different from the Christian idea. No, we don't believe that the Messiah resides or resided in heaven first before becoming physical. We believe that a human being will lead us back to the Holy Land, rebuild the Holy Temple, and restore the Kingdom of Israel, of which he will be the king. Our idea of the Messiah is pretty down to earth, at least at its root. – Seth J Aug 27 '13 at 21:04
  • 2
    @IsaacMoses Thanks for the edit. I'm not bent on the Messiah being non-human. The idea of incarnation gets around that easily. I don't understand how this is out of scope. "With your help, we're working together to build a library of detailed answers to every question about Judaism." I'm not proposing site policy; I just don't understand. It seems like you would say that although obscure sects (or any sect) call themselves adherents to Judaism, Mi Yodeya would not, therefore, questions about them are off topic, correct? If so, then the question is what is "Judaism" to Mi Yodeya? –  Aug 27 '13 at 21:08
  • 1
    @SethJ So all Jews everywhere agree on this? There is no dispute, now or every before, on the nature of the Messiah? The advent of Christianity is proof enough that the answer to both questions is no. I realize that most Jews will insist exactly what you are saying concerning the Messiah, however, I am not interested what most Jews think at the moment. I am interested in finding the origin of a particular belief. I'm just surprise at the way everyone here is saying "we believe this" like it is decided and there is nor has there ever been a dispute. Maybe I mistook the purpose of this site. –  Aug 27 '13 at 21:16
  • 3
    @fredsbend This site is about Judaism. It's not necessarily about everybody who has ever called himself Jewish. We accept some questions about some quasi-Jewish groups like Karaites and Samaritans, but questions about Jews for Jesus, for example, would be off-topic here. It's simply impossible to speak for everyone who has ever called himself Jewish. We can speak for what adherants to traditional Judaism have believed, though. – Daniel Aug 27 '13 at 21:53
  • @Daniel So is there a meta post describing what Mi Yodeya defines Judaism as? –  Aug 27 '13 at 21:56
  • 2
    @fredsbend Most relevant: http://meta.judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/1531/karaites-in-scope Regarding contemporary heterodox Jewish belief systems: http://meta.judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/292/is-there-not-room-for-non-orthodox-opinions http://meta.judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/469/non-orthodox-opinions http://meta.judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/1298/how-should-we-handle-pluralistic-posts Also relevant: http://meta.judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/828/comparative-religion-questions If more clarity is needed: http://meta.judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/ask – Isaac Moses Aug 27 '13 at 22:24
  • The messiah must be a human, sure. So how do you know that Michael is not one? Sometimes the scriptures can be very unclear whether the messengers are regular humans or spiritual beings... – curiousdannii Dec 19 '14 at 01:05
  • 2
    This asserts a contemporary belief but makes no attempt to explain anything about historical Judaism. As such, I can't see how it addresses this specific question. If the question is a problem for asking about historical Judaism then it should be closed, but whether that happens or not, this answer doesn't qualify. – curiousdannii May 12 '15 at 05:10
  • @curiousdannii RaSh"I on Daniel 10:13 (Hebrew, English‌​) makes it quite clear that Mikha'el is not human. See also Rabbeinu Sa'adiah Ga'on on Daniel 10:13 (Hebrew). – Lee May 13 '15 at 08:02