The Samaritan woman’s reference to Moshiach in John 4:25 presents a crucial exegetical insight—not only into first-century messianic expectations but also into later theological developments. The Samaritans, who adhered solely to the Torah and rejected the Davidic dynasty, nevertheless anticipated a prophetic savior figure akin to the Taheb (Restorer). This was Moshiach in the sense of a deliverer, one who would bring divine truth, not a Davidic king.
Unlike the Jews of Judea and Galilee, the Samaritans were not awaiting Moshiach ben David—the anointed (Mashiach) King from the House of David—but rather a figure who would restore proper worship and knowledge of God. Yet, Jesus’ response to her in John 4:26, where he directly identifies himself as Moshiach, signals that his messianic role was not confined to any single expectation. This challenges the assumption that his Davidic kingship remains unfulfilled until his second coming.
Within Christian theology, the standard paradigm has framed Jesus’ first coming as Moshiach ben Yosef, the suffering servant, and his second coming as Moshiach ben David, the warrior king. However, this paradigm is deeply flawed. Jesus did not defer his Davidic kingship to a future eschatological moment; rather, he already fulfilled it in his first coming. His identification as Netzer (Branch) in Matthew 2:23 connects him directly to Isaiah’s messianic prophecies, emphasizing his Davidic legitimacy. The Netzarim movement—his Jewish followers—did not see his Davidic role as something incomplete but rather as fully realized, albeit in a manner that confounded the political expectations of his time.
The expectation of an eschatological Moshiach ben David who will come to execute military judgment and establish an earthly throne is an unfortunate distortion. The world has long lived under the illusion that peace will come through war, but if that were so, war would never cease. If the Moshiach ben David expectation is reduced to a future geopolitical conqueror, then there will always be another enemy, another battle, another justification for violence. Yet, this is precisely what Jesus rejected. His kingdom is not of this world (John 18:36), and his kingship is not one that perpetuates the cycle of conquest but instead subverts it.
Nevertheless, there is a judgment—a true and righteous one. The separation of the sheep and the goats (Matthew 25:31–46) is a real dividing line, not of ethnic or national identity, but of allegiance to divine justice and truth. The war that rages is not one of flesh and blood but of principalities and powers (Ephesians 6:12). The coming of Moshiach is not about annihilation but about the revealing of what already is: that man, in his rebellion, brings destruction upon himself, and that God, in his mercy, offers a way out. We see this already unfolding in history, as the violent machinations of the nations lead to inevitable self-destruction—Gog rising not because God ordains endless war, but because man chooses it.
This is why the Samaritan woman’s recognition of Moshiach is so important. She was not looking for a Davidic conqueror but for a savior. Jesus did not dismiss her expectation as wrong; rather, he fulfilled it in a way that also encompassed the Davidic promise. He is both Mashiach, the Anointed King, and Moshiach, the Saving Redeemer. The mistake is in thinking these must be two separate roles or that one is deferred to a later time. His return is not about becoming king, but about bringing to fullness what is already inaugurated.
This is not a passive kingship awaiting validation; it is an active reign, already present, already victorious. The challenge is not in awaiting his Davidic fulfillment, but in recognizing it.
