Why Did Jesus Present Himself as the Messiah if It Was just a Popular Belief?

To understand why Jesus presented himself as the Messiah, we must begin with an important point: Jesus did not simply accept the people’s idea of the Messiah. Instead, he redefined, corrected, and transformed that idea into something entirely different. While the term “Messiah” already existed in the Jewish imagination, its meaning in the time of Jesus was far from what he intended to communicate.

A Different Understanding of the Messiah

In first-century Jewish society, the word “Messiah” carried strong political and nationalistic expectations. People hoped for:

• a political king,
• a military leader who would overthrow Rome,
• someone who would restore Israel’s glory,
• and a ruler who would govern from Jerusalem.

Jesus rejected this entire framework. He avoided any action that might portray him as a political king or revolutionary. Whenever crowds attempted to make him a ruler, he deliberately withdrew. He refused to gather an army, lead a revolt, or seize power.

In short, Jesus accepted the title “Messiah,” but not the expectations attached to it.

A Title Reinterpreted Through Divine Calling

Although Jesus distanced himself from the popular meaning of Messiah, he did believe he had a unique mission from God:

• to reveal the presence of God’s kingdom,
• to restore people to God through forgiveness and healing,
• to bring justice and compassion,
• and to form a new community rooted in love.

The word “Messiah” was the closest available term that pointed toward someone chosen and empowered by God for a special purpose. But Jesus filled the term with new meaning through his teachings and actions.

He presented himself as:

• a servant-Messiah, not a political hero,
• a suffering Messiah, not a triumphant general,
• a shepherd, not a throne-seeking king,
• the bringer of God’s kingdom, not the restorer of an earthly kingdom.

For Jesus, Messiahship was not about power but about loving, serving, and sacrificing.

A Mission Rooted in God’s Call

Jesus never said, “I am the Messiah you expected.” His language was different. He spoke about his divine calling:

• “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,”
• “The kingdom of God has come near,”
• “The Son of Man must suffer,”
• “God is doing something new through me.”

His authority flowed from his experience of God—most clearly at his baptism, when he heard:
“You are my beloved Son.”

This experience shaped Jesus’ understanding of himself far more than the popular beliefs of his time.

Correcting the People’s Belief

Through parables, symbolic actions, and the use of titles like “Son of Man,” Jesus slowly reshaped the idea of Messiah. He made it clear that the true Messiah:

• is not a conqueror,

• not a violent revolutionary,

• not a political ruler,
  but:

• the one who gives his life for others,

• heals the brokenhearted,

• forgives enemies,

• and brings God’s rule through love and humility.

By reinterpreting the concept, Jesus opened a new way of understanding God’s work in the world.

A Title Fully Understood After the Resurrection

Before the resurrection, Jesus spoke cautiously about being the Messiah. The disciples themselves struggled to understand what he meant. After the resurrection, however, they saw clearly:

• his mission was spiritual, not political,
• his authority was given by God,
• his kingdom was universal, not nationalistic,
• and his Messiahship was revealed through self-giving love, not force.

Only then did the full meaning of “Messiah” become clear.

Why Jesus Used the Title at All

Jesus used the title “Messiah” because:

• it was a familiar word people could grasp,
• he truly believed he was sent by God,
• he wanted to transform the concept from within,
• abandoning the word would create even more confusion,
• and it effectively communicated his mission—after being reshaped.

He did not endorse the crowd’s expectation; he corrected and redefined it.

In One Sentence

Jesus presented himself as the Messiah not because he accepted the popular belief, but because he transformed that belief into the truth about God’s kingdom.

---

Two Groups of Pharisees

 During the time of Jesus, there were many groups among the Jews. Two of the most important were the Hillel school and the Shammai school. Both groups tried to understand the Law of Moses and teach people how to live. But they taught in very different ways.

The Hillel school, founded by a teacher named Hillel, was known for its gentle and practical approach. They believed that God’s commands should help people, not make their lives harder. So they were more flexible, more compassionate, and more open to people who were considered outsiders.

The Shammai school was the opposite—very strict and very rigid. They believed that every rule must be kept exactly, without any relaxation. They focused on purity, separation from sinners, and strict Sabbath laws. They also discouraged contact with Gentiles. Because of this, they often seemed harsh and judgmental.

When we read the teachings of Jesus, we notice something interesting. Though Jesus never mentions Hillel or Shammai by name, many of his ideas sound very close to the Hillel school. For example, Hillel once taught: “Do not do to others what you don’t want done to yourself.” Jesus taught something very similar: “Do to others what you wish they would do to you.” Both emphasized love, kindness, and the heart of the Law rather than the details.

Jesus also taught that the Sabbath was made for people, not people for the Sabbath. This is the same approach the Hillel school had—human need is more important than strict rules. Jesus welcomed sinners, tax collectors, and even Gentiles, which also fits the spirit of Hillel’s teaching.

In contrast, Jesus often clashed with the kind of strict thinking that belonged to the Shammai school. They did not like people mixing with sinners. They condemned healing on the Sabbath. They focused heavily on purity rules. These are the very things Jesus criticized again and again. He believed that compassion was more important than ritual details.

Because of these similarities, some people think Jesus was very close to the Hillel tradition. But we must be careful. Jesus was not a student of Hillel, nor was he officially part of any school. He taught with his own authority and often went far beyond anything Hillel or Shammai taught. For example, Jesus’ command to “love your enemies” is stronger than anything in either school. His vision of the kingdom of God was much wider than the debates of the teachers of his time.

So what can we say? Many scholars agree that Jesus stood closer to the gentle, compassionate approach of Hillel than to the harsh strictness of Shammai. But Jesus was not simply following Hillel. He was offering something deeper and more radical—an invitation to a new way of life built on love, mercy, and total trust in God.

In short, Jesus did not belong to either school, but his heart and his teaching were much more in harmony with Hillel’s spirit than with Shammai’s strictness.