Some Jews believed that the future messiah would be a great prophet like Moses, others a high priest like Aaron, and most of the people expected a king like David who would come and restore the kingdom of Israel. In the late Second Temple Period arose a messianic movement, and many leaders claimed this title, but all failed, except Jesus of Nazareth. In his ministry, Jesus healed the sick, revived the dead, preached with wisdom and power like no one ever had before. In the eyes of his followers, Jesus truly was the awaited Messiah.
First of all, let us understand the etymology of the word messiah:
In Hebrew, the word for messiah is יח ִׁ֣ ש ָמ” mashiakh” which literally means someone who has been “anointed with oil.” In the Bible this word was used to refer to a person who has had been “consecrated to a divinely appointed task” (Martin S. Jaffee, Early Judaism: Religious World of the First Judaic Millennium (Maryland: University Press of Maryland, 2006), 92). The best picture given by the Torah is when Moses anointed Aaron at the Sinai; we read that the prophet “poured some of the anointing oil on Aaron’s head and anointed him, to consecrate him”, as the high priest to officiate the sacrificial service in the Tabernacle (Lev 8:12; Ps 133:2 NRSV). After these ceremonies, Aaron and David became anointed ones, messiahs; Aaron for the sacred task in the tabernacle and David to rule the country on the throne.
Afterwards when the temple was destroyed and the Israelites went captive to Babylon, the word changed its meaning. John Collins believes that “in the postexile period when there was no longer a king in Jerusalem,” they associated the term “with an ideal David king” as we see in Psalm 2:2 (John J. Collins, The Scepter and the Star: Messianism in the Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Second Edition (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co, 2010, 17).
The suffering caused by their oppressors and the lack of a king in the throne of Israel give birth to the hope of a kingly Messiah, a son of David, as the prophet Jeremiah had prophesied when he said: “The days are surely coming, says the Lord, when I will raise up for David a righteous Branch, and he shall reign as king and deal wisely, and shall execute justice and righteousness in the land” (23:5 NRSV). The prophet Isaiah as well, promised a messiah who would break the yoke of their shoulders and will defeat their enemies with justice, as he said: “His authority shall grow continually, and there shall be endless peace for the throne of David and his kingdom. He will establish and uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time onward and forevermore” (9:7 NRSV). David himself prophesied for the coming Messiah when he said: “The Lord says to my lord, “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool” (Ps 110:1 NRSV).
Silberman adds that the messiah of Qumran will be a victorious King (Neil Asher Silberman, The Hidden Scrolls: Christianity, Judaism and the War for the Dead Sea Scrolls (New York: A Grosset/Putnam Book, 1994), 104). Henceforth, most of the Jewish people will hope for a Messiah King who is able to snatch away the throne of David in order to set them free from their oppressors and redeem all those who are living in the diaspora.
The possibility of two messiahs even up to three messiahs came from the Essenes. Some of the members of this sect from the Jews, in rejection of the Hellenism that had invaded Jerusalem and the holy temple, left the city and established their community in the wilderness by the Dead Sea around 125 B.C.E. They sought to live and “practice what they believed was the true biblical faith (Silberman, The Hidden Scrolls: Christianity, Judaism and the War for the Dead Sea Scrolls, 10). Their community today is known from the Qumran ruins, and was discovered in 1947 near the Dead Sea; where they also found eleven caves. In these caves were hundreds of fragments, manuscripts, and biblical books. The Manual of Discipline (1QS 9:10- 11), they “clearly affirms” their beliefs in three future figures: a prophet like Moses, a priest like Aaron, and a king like David (Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Dead Sea Scrolls and Christian Origin (Grand Rapids Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2010), 83).
Apart from DSS, James D. Tabor sees evidence of two messiah in the book of Jubilee.
We read that “a spirit of prophecy came down upon his mouth”( James H. Charles, The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha: Expansion of the “Old Testament” and Legends, Wisdom and Philosophical Literature, Prayers, Psalms, and Odes, Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Work (New York: Doubleday A Company, Inc., 1985),115), and Isaac the patriarch declared “a perpetual blessing upon Levi as the progenitor of the priest, and Judah as the father of the prince who will rule over Israel and the nations” (Jub 31) (James D. Tabor, “Two Messiahs: The Evidence in the Late 2nd Temple Period”, 2). The word messiah is not mentioned there, but the texts alludes to two messianic figures. Although most scholars have already accepted the idea of two messiahs, A. J. B. Higgins, who is in favor of a single messiah, argues that a title specifying “the Messiah of Aaron,” does not appear in any of the Dead Sea manuscripts. Being in the same page as Higgins, M. J. Lagrange, comments that the anointed priest of Qumran does have an important role within the community, but the priest is not the ideal for the future messiah. On the other hand, Alan F. Segal in his book “Rebecca’s Children,” commenting to the same text (1QS 9:11), argues that “a prophet, a royal messiah, and a priestly messiah are mentioned alongside one another.” And these three personages are the ones who will restore the kingdom of Israel in the last days.
For Zechariah 4.11-14, Israel Knohl in his book “The Messiah before Jesus,” argue that the two olive trees and the two anointed ones “indicate two Messiahs who are anointed with oil,” the Aaronic and Davidic (James D. Tabor, “Two Messiahs: The Evidence in the Late 2nd Temple Period”, 2). 3 It is impossible not to agree that in the Second Temple Period some groups had the hope for two, or even up to three messiahs. Robert B. Laurin says that “there is overwhelming evidence everywhere, -the history of the development of the word, its use in Jewish literature, and other Scrolls- indicates that the messianic hope of the Scrolls was for a Davidic Messiah and a high priestly companion” (Robert B. Laurin, “The Problem of Two Messiahs in the Qumran Scrolls” (American Theological Library Association, 2016), 52). José Luis Sicre in his conclusion of the two messiahs issue also comments that, even though in the oldest writings there are not two messiahs registered, after some time in the Essenes community, the “messianic idea changed” into two Messiahs, a priestly and kingly (Sicre, De David Al Mesías: Textos Básicos de la Esperanza Mesiánica, 393).
Most scholars accept the two messiahs, the priestly and the kingly as an expectation of at least some Jews. In this way, they overlook the Prophet who is also mentioned in the same text. If this figure is written together with the two messiahs, it is because he must be an important messiah for the latest days. Collins observes that a “eschatological prophet is a shadowy figure, not only in the Scrolls, but generally in the Judaism of the time” (Collins, The Scepter and the Star: Messianism in the Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 128). Thereby we shall take a close look to the coming prophet of the Essenes and include him in the apocalyptic task. Segal sees that this prophet is reckoned in the messianism movement; therefore, “the Dead Sea community appointed three office holders: an interpreter of Torah, a head priest, and a lay leader,” and these three anointed ones are going to rule the restoration of the kingdom of Israel (Segal, Rebecca’s Children: Judaism and Christianity in the Roman World, 51).
Aside from the figures of the king and the prophet, a priestly messianism was also expected in the Second Temple Period. As we noticed at the beginning of this essay, Moses anointed Aaron and his sons for the sacred task in the Tabernacle (Lev 8:12). Although all descendants of Levi’s tribe worked in the temple, only the Aaronic lineage could be priests and high priests. The Priests could do various offices like teaching and judging, but their primary function was the sacrificial services. Through the blood sacrifice they restored God’s dwelling in the temple and “enabled a right relationship with God” (Lev 4:1-6, 16:1-19). First, they “made atonement” for accrued pollution from sins. Second, they “purified the person whose impurity had lasted more than seven days.” The priest also served as a “mediator between” the holy and unclean, in other words, the priest had the responsibility of maintaining pure the relationship between God and men (R. K. Duke, Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch. Editors: T. Desmond Alexander and David W. Baker (Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2003), 653).
The Self-Glorification Hymn, as most scholars know it, describe the Messiah as a king, teacher, and high priest. But the most interesting fact here is that, aside from seeing a glorious Messiah sitting on the throne of God, we also see a suffering messiah. This is from (4QHe frg. I-2) and it has the Suffering Servant hymn.
Knohl believes that the community of Qumran “expected the coming of a Messiah who would bring them atonement for their sins.” He also observes that in the Damascus Covenant, the expiation of the future Messiah will be superior to the obtained through “sin offerings” by the ordinary priests in the temple (Knohl, The Messiah Before Jesus: The suffering servant of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 22-23). Indeed, they expected a perfect atonement that would forgive their sins once and for all. In addition, in the book of Enoch speaks of an image of a white Bull, which seems “to be a messiah” who transforms all bulls into a white as a symbol of purification (James C. VanderKam, An Introduction to Early Judaism. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 106-7). This scene shows a hope of redemption and a final forgiveness by a great expiation provided by the priestly messiah. Why did the Messiah have to suffer and even die? To understand the theology of the hymn and the prophecy of Isaiah, we need a brief review of The Day of Atonement. This day was the most solemn day in the calendar of Israel because it was a “holy convocation” from God. The high priest was the most important figure on this day. He took off his elegant attire that gave him glory and put on a linen robe, as a sign of humiliation before God just like all the ordinary people. After being completely bathed, and putting on his simple linen tunic, he was prepared for the great sacrifice of the year (J. E. Hartley, Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch, 56). After that, he carried the blood of the bull that was slaughtered for his own sins, and the blood of the goat that was sacrificed for the sins of all people. And he entered into the holy of holies and sprinkled the blood with his finger on the front of the mercy seat. Through this great atonement the sins of all people were expiated, and a new liturgical year began. In addition, the death of the high priest had a great importance in the nation of Israel.
Some scholars see three possible benefices given by his death.
First, his death opened the “occasion for a general amnesty” of the fugitives, similarly to the one granted by the new king when he takes the throne. The second and the most acceptable is that the death of the high priest “made atonement for the sin of unintentional homicide,” since even the unintentional sins need to be expiated. Furthermore, according to Genesis 9:6 and Number 35:33 “there was no payment that would atone for the death of a human being other than the death of another human being” (T. A. Clarke, Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch, 127). And third, the death of the high priest also permitted the return of those who were found guilty of killing someone unintentionally, and were living in the cities of refuge. In his death, all the refugees could come back home again (Num 35:25).
Many scholars have observed that the very first teaching of Jesus has parallelism with the Mount Sinai where Moses received the law of God and transmitted it to the congregation.
In the Sermon of Beatitudes, Jesus “went up the mountain” and sat in the high he began teaching the new law to the crowds (Mtt 5:1-2 NRSV) (William Hendriksen, Comentario Al Nuevo Testamento: El Evangelio Según San Mateo (Grand Rapids, MI: Libros Desafío, 2007), 272–273. According to David F. Burt, Jesus did not give a new law but instead reinterpreted it spiritually (Mtt. 5:17), focusing in love and justice. His new law or his oral Torah was focusing on Christian ethics, as the new standard of life for those who respond to his Gospel (Rom 13:8-10; Juan 13:34) (David F. Burt, Seréis Perfectos, Mateo 5:1–48, 1a Edición., vol. 3). In addition to this comparison, Jesus also did supernatural wonders just like Moses did; Moses divided the Red Sea, Jesus Stills a Storm (Exod 14:16; Mark 4:35-40). Jesus also prophesied like the Old Testament prophets (Mark 12:2; Matt 24). Although the prophetic office was highly reflected in his ministry, his primary vocation was to be the priestly Messiah. According to the epistle to the Hebrews, Jesus of Nazareth was the great high priest, who did not commit any sin, thereby his priestly function was perfect. J. E. Hartley comment that, Jesus in his death on the cross achieved “once for all time the entire efficacy of the annual Day of Atonement (Heb 9:1-10:14;12:2).” He affirms that comparing him to the Old Testament’s priests, Jesus did not have to offer any sacrifice for himself or every year because in “his death Jesus was at the same time the perfect sacrifice.” By his blood shedding on the earth he achieved a full “atonement for all who believe in him” (J. E. Hartley, Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch, 59).
Cf. Ghaffar, Der Koran in seinem religions- und weltgeschichtlichen Kontext, 57–74. In his analysis of the mid-Meccan Surah Ṣād (Q 38) Ghaffar indicates that even at this stage the proclaimer of the Qurʾan will not accept a Davidic Messiah. Since in all likelihood Emperor Heraclius began spreading his propaganda about a Davidic Messiah as early as the 610s, it therefore makes sense that the proclaimer of the Qurʾan should repeatedly react here.