Biblical texts were written in living languages. Over time, certain connotations, meanings of words, and phrases change to fit new contexts. It would follow, then, that how one reads and understands Biblical scriptures in the modern age differs from the age it was cast in. The word “Messiah”, especially, has grown to encompass much more following the rise of apocalyptic thinking around 200 BCE- 100 CE than some authors originally intended.
In the context of early Israelite authors, the term “Messiah” meant “anointed one,” especially in reference to an earthly king. The anointing of a king with oil was a symbol of that king’s calling to be set apart in the service of God. This service was carried out as God’s adopted son the Father’s Spirit upon him and, by extension, the kingdom (White, 25). By no means did reflect views that the king was a divine being on Earth, but it definitely set the king above the average man. That the anointing took place was considered a blessing and the fulfillment of God’s promise of the continuation of the Davidic kingdom. The job of the newly anointed son was to protect the Lord’s temple and dwelling place on Mount Zion (25).
The text itself reflects these notions and expectations of early messianic views in several sections, regarding several aspects of the job description. In several writings of the Bible, God promises the continuation of the Davidic kingdom (2 Samuel 7:12-13, 16; Isaiah 11:1) and His Spirit to be upon the anointed Israeli king (2 Samuel 7:14-15; Isaiah 11:2). God also affirms his adoption of the messianic king (2 Samuel 7:14; Psalm 2:7), and the king’s calling to build, maintain, and protect the Temple of God (2 Samuel 7:13; Psalm 2:6).
The rise of apocalypticism in Jewish thought changed the expectations surrounding the title of “Messiah”. Even the term “apocalypse” has changed, originally referring to the end of the present time, assuming a radical shift (socially, politically, etc.) that would bring about a new, better, era (White, 28). This post-apocalyptic age would supposedly be brought in by a messianic, conquering king who would bring about peace by, “…forcefully [purging] the nation of internal corruption and foreign influences.” (31) This conquering ruler, though, is not the ultimate victor in the battle between good and evil; that role is reserved for a prophetic or priestly messianic figure (31). Historically, though led by The Spirit and bringing about God’s will, neither figure is considered divine. These figures are similar to the traditional messiahs in that they serve and rule the kingdom of Israel with God’s blessing and Spirit, but differ in the extent to which they are called to do so. Rather than simply leading Israel, they are sent to save it from the context of critical times.
Looking specifically at the scene of Jesus’ baptism by his cousin, John the Baptist, the author of the gospel of Mark makes several claims about Jesus in his style of writing that bears the weight of pre and post-apocalyptic thinking. As Jesus completed the symbolic act of baptism, the text says that, “…he saw the heavens torn apart and the Spirit descending like a dove on him. And a voice came from heaven, ‘You are my Son, the Beloved; with you I am well pleased.’” (Mark 1:10-11). This clearly reflects the view that Jesus was, in fact, the anointed Messiah, in the way that the messianic king was viewed before the rise of apocalypticism by the literal descent of God’s Spirit and what is assumed to be His voice. God goes further to claim Jesus is His son. In Jewish thought, this would mean that the end times had drawn nearer with the sending of Jesus as the messianic king and deliverer of the nation of Israel. This, in no way, claims Jesus’ divinity, congruent with later messianic thinking, but it does set him up as being a part of God’s plan.