Some Christians believe that the Messiah was not supposed to be just a man but rather an incarnation of God.

Do any Jews (not counting so-called messianic Jews who are really Christians) believe that Mashiach is an incarnation of God, or at least some higher creature (not just a great man)?

  • 4
    No [15 char...] – Seth J Nov 10 '13 at 6:23
  • 1
    I used the word "Christ" not "Jesus" because linguistically "Christ" (but not "Jesus") is the same as "Mashiach" (these are just words from different languages which however mean exactly the same). Unfortunately an edit has be done which obscures this linguistic fact. I will replace back "Jesus" -> "Christ" – porton Nov 10 '13 at 18:24
  • 4
    @porton We know the linguistics. Can you explain why that fact was necessary for the question and not just a buzzword which can cause confusion? – Double AA Nov 10 '13 at 19:36
  • 1
    @double, better. – Seth J Nov 11 '13 at 4:17

Absolutely not.

The Jewish messiah is a flesh-and-blood man descended from King David.

  • 4
    Umm "will be..." – Seth J Nov 9 '13 at 23:43
  • "And there shall come forth a shoot out of the stock of Yishai" (Isaiah 11:1) regarding the Messiah. Yishai was the father of David – ray Nov 20 '13 at 19:07
  • @SethJ ...achake bechol yom sheyavoh – warz3 Apr 13 '15 at 11:36
  • 2
    Source? [char...] – mevaqesh Sep 2 '15 at 20:38
  • 1
    @SethJ It's heavily implied by Sanhedrin 98a that Mashiach exists in every generation; it's up to us to decide if he gets to fulfill his role or not. – DonielF Mar 1 '19 at 22:06

Unequivocally and absolutely no, it is a fundamental belief that Moshiach is a human being. See the following website for more explanation and sources. http://www.moshiach.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=171&Itemid=88

Also see this answer: https://judaism.stackexchange.com/a/22274/3403

The following websites also provide more background http://www.moshiach.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=171&Itemid=88 http://www.jewfaq.org/mashiach.htm

I do not have it on hand, but Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan's amazing and extremely comprehensive book "The Handbook of Jewish Thought" has a chapter devoted to the topic of Moshiach and the fact that he must be human.

  • 5
    Would you like to describe the contents of any of those sources? – Charles Koppelman Nov 10 '13 at 3:05

No. This would violate more than one fundamental Jewish principle. Please refer yourself to the 13 principles of faith by the rambam

  • 2
    The question asked about "any Jewish tradition", and the Rambam is not universally accepted so I don't see how you've supported your claim that the answer to the question is "no". – Double AA Nov 19 '13 at 22:54
  • There may be some debate as to whether Rambam's list is exhaustive or fundamental, but aside for some nuances, no significant authority denies the content of the Rambam's list. So while the Ra'avad (in)famously allows for someone to believe in literal anthropomorphism without being a heretic, he himself agrees with incorporeality. – Ephraim Nov 20 '13 at 7:05
  • 1
    @Eph What are you talking about? The Raavad testifies that rabbis greater than him held God could be corporeal, not to mention the statements we have by the tosafist R Moshe Taku to that effect. Also, didn't the Rambam think it was an ikkar emunah that Deu 34:1-4 were written by Moshe? Ibn Ezra thought they were written by Yehoshua. Do you think Rav Hillel the Amora was a Kofer? Let alone machlokot about Kabbalah, Tzimtzum, Gilgulim and what not. I'm not saying these are the biggest differences, but to pretend they dont exist is just nonsense. – Double AA Nov 20 '13 at 7:17
  • In the Yerushalmi (Taanis I believe) it discusses the impossibility of the questioned situation, denouncing it as FALSE – warz3 Apr 13 '15 at 20:36
  • @DoubleAA Actually, even Dr. Marc Shapiro (who is probably more closely associated with the idea of dispute in the realm of Jewish belief than anyone else) concedes that R. Hillel was a heretic. He thus avoids the Chassam Sofer's proof that hashkafa can be "paskened". (By noting that R. Hillel's view was never legitimate in the first place). – mevaqesh Sep 2 '15 at 20:41

This is idea of God being a man, or being incarnated into a man is incompatible with scripture.

Numbers 23:19

יט לֹא אִישׁ אֵל וִיכַזֵּב, וּבֶן-אָדָם וְיִתְנֶחָם; הַהוּא אָמַר וְלֹא יַעֲשֶׂה, וְדִבֶּר וְלֹא יְקִימֶנָּה. 19 God is not a man, that He should lie; neither the son of man, that He should repent: when He hath said, will He not do it? or when He hath spoken, will He not make it good?

  • If God were a man, the Christians would have to confess that the Incarnation is false. Of course, Christians who believe that God became man, insist on God's not being a man by definition: you can't have an Incarnation if God is a man! And 'becoming a man' never meant the divine nature 'changing into that of a man'... but God taking on a human form like He does elsewhere in the Bible (Isaiah 6:1; cf. John 12:41), but of course in a unique and novel way—a kind of new Temple to dwell in; flesh—where the taking on of such or manifesting Himself thus does not compromise who He is. – SolaGratia Sep 30 '19 at 0:06

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .