It is not uncommon to hear modern psychologists refer to a diagnosis called the messiah complex disorder. The ancient historian, Josephus, documented several individuals who would possibly fit the modern malady where selflessness is manifested in extreme narcissism and often associated with bipolar disorder or schizophrenia. A Samaritan “prophet” (Josephus, Ant. 18.85-87), a pretender named Theudas (Ant. 20.97-98), Egyptian false prophets (Josephus, J. W. 2.261-263; Ant. 20.167-170), a certain Jesus, son of Ananus (J. W. 6.300-309), and Jonathan who persuaded many to follow (J. W. 7.437-442) all claimed to be prophets, and all may be diagnosed with a psychological disorder by modern medicine if alive today. However, as Derek Dodson and Katherine Smith point out, although some scholars collectively refer to these individuals in terms of messiah movements, no evidence exists that they were referred to as “messiah.”[1]
More importantly for the discussion at hand would be the term “messianism,” which specifically refers to the Messianic expectations of ancient Jews. Regarding the nature of the expectations, N. T. Wright and Michael Bird unequivocally state, “there was no uniform and monolithic ‘Messianic expectation’ shared by all first-century Jews.”[2] Granted, significant differences of opinion did exist among Jewish authors and groups who anticipated a Messiah.
Alternatively, to suggest that there was absolutely no general consensus on the basic characteristics of the coming Messiah may go too far. For example, Everett Ferguson agrees that first-century Judaism entailed a variety of Messianic expectations, but, in general, the term “Messiah” was not common, a specific agent did not always occur, and when an agent did occur, the view was often blurred; thus Jews thought more in terms of a time of restoration or the “days of the Messiah” rather than a central figure as Christians came to believe.[3] The remainder of the discussion explores the primary sources that support both the variegated nature of Messianic expectations of early Judaism as well as some common threads.
One segment of Judaism’s Messianic expectations assumed an anointed military leader who would purge Israel from sinners as noted by certain aspects of Second Temple literature. The author of the Psalms of Solomon asserts that the Lord will raise up a king to “destroy the unrighteous rulers, to purge Jerusalem from gentiles who trample her to destruction” (Ps. Sol. 17:21-22). Not only will the king drive out sinners but “their king shall be the Lord Messiah” (Ps. Sol. 17:32). Further, the War Scroll from Qumran points to an eschatological war between a remnant of Israel and her enemies led by various leaders who are God’s instruments. Specifically, an extermination of the sons of darkness will bring salvation to Israel that defeats wickedness (1QM i 5-6).
Jewish sources also envisioned a Messiah much less like a military commander and much more like a supernatural human. The author of the Fourth Book of Ezra has a vision of a man coming up from the sea and flying in the clouds who breathed fire onto his enemies and destroyed them (4 Ez 13:8-11). The book then explains the vision, which suggests the individual will deliver God’s creation: “The Most High will deliver those who are on earth” (4 Ez 13:25-29). In contrast, the community at Qumran envisioned two distinct leaders. First, the author exhorts the readers to walk according to the law “until the prophet comes, and the Messiahs of Aaron and Israel” (1QS ix 9-11). Furthermore, in reference to the blessing of the wine and bread, the author of the Rule of the Congregation states that the “Messiah of Israel [shall str]etch out his hands” (1QSa ii. 19-21). Regardless, Géza Xeravits contends that Qumran’s Messianic expectations ultimately synthesized around an individual, a priestly character, who reflected the Righteous Teacher.[4] Similarly, Philo also pointed to a Hebrew king that would “devour many nations of their enemies” (Philo Vit. Mos. 1.290-1).
Finally, the writings of the Jewish historian, Josephus, and the Roman writer, Tacitus, also refer to predictions within Jewish communities of a coming ruler. Josephus refers to an oracle of the Jewish sacred writings that supported the belief in an individual arising from their country to govern the entire earth (J. W. 6.312-313). Likewise, Tacitus suggests that within the ancient records of the Jewish priests was a prediction that pointed to a time when leaders from Judea would arise and “acquire [the] universal empire” (Tacitus, Histories 5.13). Finally, Dodson and Smith highlight that the Roman poet Virgil during the late Second Temple period describes a child that appears to possibly reflect Isaiah 7 and 11:8-9, which indicates that a child will inaugurate a peaceful time in history. The authors admit that the reference to the child originates from Greco-Roman influence rather than Judaism, but it does accentuate the broader expectations of an eschatological agent. In short, although apocalyptic threads of continuity exist within different forms of Judaism, the evidence supports significant differences of opinions regarding the Messianic expectations of first-century Jews.
What might account for the differing Messianic expectations between first-century Jews is likely a more speculative venture. However, throughout history, differences of opinions and perspectives are often informed by the worldview of the people group. It would not be unexpected that a certain segment of Jews would look for an anointed military leader in light of their heritage. The leadership of Moses, the conquests of Joshua, and the victories of David all provide models for a potential eschatological agent who might overcome foreign enemies. Closer in time to the first-century Jew would be the relatively recent memory of the Maccabean revolt that provided a model for tipping a foreign oppressor. Alternatively, the influence of the Teacher of Righteousness within the Qumran community would more likely model a priestly figure to inhabit a Messianic role rather than a military commander. Finally, Jews influenced by the worldview of Hellenism may lean towards a future ruler who might bring peace rather than military force. The benefits of Pax Romana in their recent past and the potential for a Jewish ruler to provide the same stability to the Jewish nation may have been appealing to some first-century Jews. Although the precise reasons for first-century Jews to differ in opinion regarding Messianic expectations are not completely determinative, it appears reasonable to conclude that the worldview of the various Jewish groups, which were informed by their rich heritage, would contribute to the different perspectives.
________________________________
[1] Derek S. Dodson and Katherine E. Smith, eds., Exploring Biblical Backgrounds: A Reader in Historical and Literary Contexts (Waco, Texas: Baylor University Press, 2018), 181.
[2] N. T. Wright and Michael F. Bird, The New Testament in Its World: An Introduction to the History, Literature, and Theology of the First Christians (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Academic, 2019), 226.
[3] Everett Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 553.
[4] Géza G Xeravits, “The Early History of Qumran’s Messianic Expectations,” Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 76, no. 1 (April 2000): 121.
Bibliography
- Dodson, Derek S., and Katherine E. Smith, eds. Exploring Biblical Backgrounds: A Reader in Historical and Literary Contexts. Waco, Texas: Baylor University Press, 2018.
- Ferguson, Everett. Backgrounds of Early Christianity. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003.
- Wright, N. T., and Michael F. Bird. The New Testament in Its World: An Introduction to the History, Literature, and Theology of the First Christians. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Academic, 2019.
- Xeravits, Géza G. “The Early History of Qumran’s Messianic Expectations.” Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 76, no. 1 (April 2000): 113–121.