Just as you might expect to find a variety of opinions and convictions on certain subjects within any single Sunday School class in any place you might care to check, so there were a wide ranging variety of ideas about what Messiah would be and do. We are not surprised to find that given religious and political parties would express a broadly common view, yet individuals within the party might express their own unique formulation of that common view. In some cases there were those who professed no expectations at all. However, we can expect the common Israelite living in Judea or Galilee during the First Century of either BC or AD would have heard and embraced a recognizable body of understanding regarding the Anointed One, however fuzzy that picture may have been.
We have already discussed the longing of the Jews driven from their homeland by Babylon. In Exile, they made certain characteristic changes in their previous habits, hoping to persuade Jehovah to restore what was taken from them. When that day finally came, they found themselves in an adverse situation, surrounded by enemies no longer subdued. Their spirit was crushed yet again. While some did turn again to Jehovah for relief, many despaired. It was the prodding of the prophets, expressed in Messianic visions of a future refreshing of faith and freedom, that help inspire the rebuilding of the Temple, and eventually the city walls of Jerusalem. When the day came they were struggling again under the harsh yoke of the Selucids, and then Rome, it had become manifestly obvious that hoped-for golden age had not yet arrived. So at was at all levels of Jewish society, there was at least some vague longing for redemption, and a belief that the Lord had promised it.
Very early there seemed at least two distinct visions promoted by the teachers and writers of Messianic Expectations. One was the obvious political redemption embodied in the term Son of David. This was the hope the Lord would send a son of the royal family who combined the military and political prowess of David (and to some degree Solomon) with the Mosaic righteousness exceeding the founders of that royal house. This Righteous King would restore, at a minimum, the fullest extent of the land promised in the Torah. With an element of a miracle-wielding super-human, many extended that to a beatific vision of world dominion. Not simply a return to political independence for the nation, this was the idea no nation would ever be capable of rising against them to oppress them. An extreme variant of this idea was that all Gentiles living would voluntarily and joyfully render themselves servants and slaves of the Jews. Furthermore, all the Jews previously dispersed would return to their former place.
Naturally, this level of dominance would bring a literal golden age of wealth. This would be more than mere economic dominance, but the miraculous wealth of stones turned to bread, streets paved with gold, jewels as common as pebbles on the ground. Every field yielded more abundance than could be imagined, every tree laden with edible fruit. There would be no more disease or injury which could not be quickly healed by materials at hand. Any dream that one might have was not too extravagant. Thus, every Jew would become a petty king, and nothing would be denied their every whim in the Day of Lord. This of course was to stand the concept of That Day on its head. In the Old Testament, the Day of the Lord was any day of judgment on sin. The arrogant assumption of many Jews was their sins were rather small, since they were so surely God's Own People. Thus, the judgment of sin would surely bring them release, and quell of their enemies.
On the other hand, the power to do all this rested on a distinct righteousness of obeying the Law of Moses. Thus, a second set of expectations gave rise in some minds to a second Messiah. This was the Son of God, a High Priest like no other. This was inherent in the alternate title, Son of Man, first used by Daniel (7:13-14). This was the Messiah of the Law, of righteousness, who would cleanse the Jews of sin by exerting a powerful teaching and enforcement ministry. Either as another duty, or as a separate Messiah, was the idea he would be the greatest prophet of all. All the best and more powerful expressions of God's word and will in the men of the Old Testament were images of this Messiah: Moses, Aaron, Elijah, Isaiah, etc. Many had no trouble seeing this as just an extension of a single royal Messiah, but Mosaic Law called for a distinction between the one who inherited the throne -- from the Tribe of Judah -- and he who could be High Priest -- from the Tribe of Levi, of the Clan of Aaron. The average Jewish peasant probably made no such distinction.
Part of the difficulty for many was in determining just what a superior righteousness would look like. Given the dominance of the Alexandrian Rabbinical School, this was far different from the orthodox view found in the Old Testament. Indeed, a Messiah true to the original Old Testament theology would be a heretic among the religious leaders of the First Century. There would be some convergence and overlap, of course, but it was in the everyday application of the Law where the difference was so obvious. Rituals had been modified some, and precisely scripted down to the finest detail, not entirely a reflection of ancient traditions. Further, it was the empty ritual that itself was holiness. To speak of observing the spirit of the Law was seeking room for sin. In the case of the "liberal" Sadducees, this might be true, as they were thoroughly Hellenized and cared little about the ancient Jehovah, God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Among the now forgotten Babylonian Orthodox, the same idea meant God was able to see the heart and count it righteousness if a man were willing to obey, but could not in the precise letter of the Law. The noted Essenes, as well as other minority sects, were a reflection of this older standard of righteousness from the depths of the soul.
Buried somewhere in all the various Messianic threads is the concept of a Messiah who suffers. This is widely ignored, and appears little in any popular source of Messianic teaching. Only among the better scholars was Isaiah 52 and 53 recognized as describing the Messiah. Indeed, the majority view was that of the Conquering Messiah, Son of David. Miracles and holiness, yes, but suffering had no part in the picture, except for the enemies of Israel, thus enemies of God. The Messiah would most certainly crush Rome, not be crushed by Rome.
A concrete example of Jesus dealing with Messianic Expectations can be found in the lesson on The Nature of Sin and Temptation.
[ Return to Lesson Index ]
[ <-- Previous Lesson ]
Ed Hurst
17 September 2005
COPYRIGHT NOTICE: People of honor need no copyright laws; they are only too happy to give credit where credit is due. Others will ignore copyright laws whenever they please. If you are of the latter, please note what Moses said about dishonorable behavior -- "be sure your sin will find you out" (Numbers 32:23)