The Mosaic Taheb and the Davidic Annointed
In Defining the Fullness of Messiah or Christ
The Samaritans of Jesus’ day nurtured a distinct messianic hope centered on a Mosaic-type restorer, called the Taheb (meaning “Restorer” or “one who returns” ). Unlike their Jewish neighbors, the Samaritans accepted only the Pentateuch as Scripture and rejected the later historical and prophetic writings . As a result, their eschatology was rooted in the promises of Moses rather than in the Davidic monarchy. They believed that at the end of days God would send a deliverer “a prophet like Moses” (cf. Deuteronomy 18:15–18) who would restore the true faith and lead the people back to God.
This expected figure – the Taheb – was envisioned as coming from the tribes of Joseph (Ephraim or Manasseh) rather than from Judah or David’s line. Samaritan tradition held that the Taheb would reign for a sacred period (some sources say 40 years, mirroring Moses’ leadership) and “bring about the return of all the Israelites,” even uncovering the ancient Tabernacle on Mount Gerizim, the Samaritan holy mountain. Crucially, Moses was regarded as the last true prophet, and no king after him (certainly no Judean king) was accorded spiritual authority in Samaritan belief.
Thus, Samaritan eschatology explicitly rejected the notion of a Davidic monarchic messiah, focusing instead on a coming teacher-prophet who would renew the covenant and “restore” the authentic worship of Yahweh. Later Samaritan writings confirm this concept: the Taheb is “a prophet like Moses” who will bring justice and call the people to repentance, but notably not a king in David’s line.This non-monarchic messianism is evidenced by what Samaritans did not expect.
Unlike Jews, they had no hope in a son of David or an anointed king in Jerusalem. In fact, they viewed the Davidic kingdom and the Jerusalem temple as aberrations; true worship was to be centered on Gerizim, and the future deliverer would uphold the sanctity of that site, not Zion. The concept of “Messiah” as an anointed king was largely foreign to them – the Gospel of John even suggests that identifying the Taheb with the term “Messiah” was a concession to Jewish terminology.
Ferdinand Dexinger observes that the Samaritan notion of the Taheb only became equated with the idea of “Messiah” in conversation with Jewish or Christian contexts (such as John 4:25). In essence, the Samaritans longed for a new Moses, not a new David. Their coming savior would be a revealer of divine truth and law, guiding the people back to God’s instruction, rather than a warrior king restoring an earthly kingdom. Early Samaritan tradition emphasized this role of the Taheb as the one “bringing truth,” with no reference to Davidic dynasty or military conquest. Even when kingship imagery was later applied to the Taheb in medieval Samaritan texts, it was never tied to the dynastic promises of David’s house. The Taheb’s role was thus fundamentally prophetic and priestly – he would call Israel to repentance and renew the covenant – standing in continuity with Moses’ ministry rather than David’s monarchy.
Jewish Messianic Expectations: Davidic King and Deliverer
In stark contrast, mainstream Jewish expectations during the Second Temple period were shaped by the Davidic covenant and the oracles of the prophets. The Hebrew Bible promised that a descendant of David would one day reign on his throne forever (2 Samuel 7:12–16). Jews widely understood this as a messianic promise of an ideal king from David’s lineage. Prophets like Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel expanded on this hope, envisioning a righteous Branch of David who would execute justice and gather God’s people (e.g. Jeremiah 23:5–6). Common themes in Jewish messianism included the Messiah’s royal lineage (preeminently from David, but also connected to Judah – Genesis 49:10 – and Jesse – Isaiah 11:1) and his role in the restoration of Israel’s fortunes. The expected Messiah would be a kingly figure who defeats Israel’s enemies, regathers the dispersed tribes, and establishes an era of peace and Torah observance in the land. Apocalyptic and pseudepigraphal writings of the era confirm this picture.
For example, the Psalms of Solomon (17–18) portray the Messiah as a purifying warrior-king – “the Lord’s ‘Anointed One’” – who shatters gentile oppressors, purges Jerusalem of sinners, and reigns in glory. The Dead Sea Scrolls similarly speak of a coming “Branch of David” who will arise in the last days to save Israel and sit on the throne in Zion. One Qumran text interprets the Nathan oracle (2 Sam 7) as referring to a messianic figure “who will stand… and rule” with justice at the end of days. In short, first-century Judaism (in its dominant strains) eagerly awaited a Davidic Messiah – a son of David empowered by God to deliver the Jewish nation, restore the kingdom, and fulfill God’s promises to the patriarchs.
It is important to note that Jewish messianic hopes were not monolithic; some groups also anticipated a priestly messiah or a prophet forerunner (e.g. the “prophet like Moses” gets a brief nod in some circles, cf. 1 Maccabees 14:41 and Qumran 4Q175). But even these expectations often operated alongside the central hope for a Davidic king. By Jesus’ time, “Messiah” for most Jews implicitly meant “son of David” – the rightful king of Israel. People hailed Jesus as “Son of David” when hoping for miracles (Matthew 20:30), and even Jesus’ disciples asked, “Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” (Acts 1:6), reflecting this Davidic, nationalistic outlook. The Messiah was expected to reestablish the throne of David in Jerusalem, throw off the yoke of Rome, and inaugurate an age of prosperity and peace.
In popular imagination, he was a conquering hero as much as a spiritual leader. Thus, Jewish eschatology looked for a monarchical Messiah, intertwining religious renewal with political deliverance. The contrast with Samaritan eschatology could not be more pronounced: David’s crown versus Moses’ staff, a royal liberator versus a prophetic teacher.
“He Will Explain Everything”: The Samaritan Woman’s Expectation (John 4)
Against this backdrop, the Gospel of John presents a remarkable encounter that highlights the Samaritan messianic paradigm. In John 4:5–26, Jesus meets a Samaritan woman at Jacob’s well in Sychar. Their conversation eventually turns to matters of worship and the Messiah. The woman says to Jesus, “I know that Messiah (called Christ) is coming. When he comes, he will explain everything to us.” (John 4:25). This statement encapsulates the Samaritan hope: the coming savior will be one who reveals truth, settling all questions and teaching God’s way. Rather than mentioning a king’s victory or Israel’s political freedom, she expects the messianic figure to “tell us all things” (another translation of the phrase) – that is, to disclose divine knowledge and guide the people. This aligns perfectly with the concept of the Taheb as the new Moses, the ultimate prophet who would bring a fuller understanding of God’s will. In fact, her very choice of words (“he will explain everything”) reflects Deuteronomy 18’s promise of a prophet who would speak all that God commands (Deut 18:18). It is evidence that Samaritans of the first century indeed were looking for a teacher and revealer, not a warrior king.
Jesus’ response to her is astonishing in its clarity: “Then Jesus declared, ‘I, the one speaking to you, I am he.’” (John 4:26). Here, Jesus openly identifies himself as the expected figure of Samaritan hope. Notably, this is one of the very few instances in the Gospels where Jesus explicitly acknowledges his messianic identity without ambiguity. In the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus is often reticent to proclaim himself Messiah publicly, likely due to the Jewish crowd’s militaristic expectations of a Son of David deliverer. But in the setting of Samaria, those political expectations were absent. “Samaritan religion…did not have a fully developed idea of the Messiah as the descendant of David,” and thus carried no strong connotation of a rebel king to overthrow Rome. As one commentator notes, “Because the Messiah was not a political or military figure for the Samaritans, Jesus could speak of His messianic office more straightforwardly.” In other words, Jesus could safely reveal “I am he” in this context because the title Messiah/Christ would be understood in its prophetic, revelatory sense, not as a call to arms or a bid for an earthly throne.
The interaction also underscores how non-Davidic this paradigm is. The woman’s faith does not depend on Jesus being of Davidic lineage (something Samaritans would not even recognize); rather, it grows from his ability to reveal hidden truth (he “told me everything I ever did,” she says in John 4:29) and to impart spiritual knowledge about true worship (John 4:20–24). By the end of the story, many Samaritans believe in Jesus and declare him to be “the Savior of the world” (John 4:42) – a remarkable title that transcends nationalistic categories. As Craig Koester observes, by using an imperial-sounding title like “Savior of the world” (a phrase even applied to Caesar in that era), the Samaritan villagers indicate that Jesus “fulfills and surpasses their national hopes,” breaking out of older divisions between Jew and Samaritan to offer salvation universally.
In sum, the Gospel of John uses the Samaritan woman’s testimony to introduce a messianic model centered on revelation and spiritual restoration. The Messiah is the one who brings truth and life (cf. John 4:10, “living water”), not an earthly potentate. This Johannine episode thus legitimizes the Samaritan expectation and portrays Jesus as meeting it: He is the Taheb who inaugurates true worship “in spirit and truth” (John 4:23) in the present time, apart from Jerusalem’s temple or David’s throne.
Jesus as the Taheb: Reframing Messianic Identity and Eschatology
Jesus’ self-identification with the Samaritan Taheb has important theological implications. It suggests that one aspect of his messianic mission was explicitly Mosaic-prophetic: to be the ultimate revealer of God’s word, the one like Moses who would teach and guide God’s people into all truth . Early Christian preaching confirms this connection – for example, the Apostle Peter directly cites Deuteronomy 18:15 in reference to Jesus, proclaiming that Moses’ prophecy of “a prophet like me” finds fulfillment in Christ (Acts 3:22; cf. Acts 7:37). In embracing the role of the Taheb, Jesus reframes messianic expectations away from solely Davidic royal imagery. He embodies a messiah who is prophet, teacher, and savior for all peoples, not just the conquering king of Israel.
This does not mean that Jesus rejected the Davidic promises – the New Testament also affirms Jesus as heir to David’s throne (Luke 1:32, Matthew 1:1) and “the Lion of the tribe of Judah” (Revelation 5:5). However, Jesus’ ministry often downplayed political kingship in favor of a spiritual kingdom. He taught, “My kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36), indicating that his reign would not mimic the worldly power of David or Caesar. During his first advent, Christ fulfilled the messianic role in unexpected ways: he came as the suffering servant and the truth-bearing prophet. He inaugurated the Kingdom of God not by force of arms, but by preaching good news to the poor, forgiving sins, and revealing the Father. In theological terms, Jesus brought a great eschatological disclosure – the final revelation of God’s purpose – in his own person and work. The Samaritan expectation of a teacher-messiah is thus shown to be profoundly true in Jesus. He did “explain everything to us” in the sense of revealing God’s nature (John 4:25, cf. John 14:9) and the way of salvation. The New Covenant he established can be seen as the ultimate restoration of Israel’s religion – a return to the heart of worship “in spirit and truth” as Moses and the patriarchs intended.
All of this challenges the framework of a purely futurist, Davidic-centric eschatology that some Christian theologies hold. Many Christian futurists (for example, dispensationalists or certain millennialists) envision the Second Coming of Christ primarily as the moment when Jesus will finally assume the role of an earthly Davidic king – ruling from Jerusalem, fulfilling the political hopes of Israel, and exercising global government. This narrative essentially postpones the Davidic messianic functions to Jesus’ return in glory. But the Samaritan Taheb paradigm presses us to ask: Is an earthly Davidic monarchy the ultimate goal of Christ’s work, or has Jesus already achieved the crucial messianic tasks in a higher, spiritual sense? Jesus’ ready embrace of the Samaritan messianic role – without mention of Davidic throne claims in that context – suggests that the heart of his messiahship lies elsewhere than in Davidic kingship. Indeed, by satisfying the Samaritan expectation, Jesus implies that restoration and revelation are the primary works of the Messiah, works which he was already accomplishing in his first coming.
The theological upshot is that Christ’s mission can be seen as fundamentally transcending Jewish nationalistic hopes. If Jesus is truly the Taheb who “restores all things” (cf. Mark 9:12) and makes God fully known, then the need for a future messianic age defined by an earthly Davidic ruler is not as central as some interpretive schemes assume. His salvation is universal and eschatological in a spiritual sense – as the Samaritans confessed, the Messiah is “Savior of the world,” not just Israel’s king. The focus shifts from a geopolitical kingdom to a cosmic, redemptive kingdom in which Christ’s work on the cross and resurrection has already laid the foundation. In embracing the Samaritan view, the Gospel signals that Jesus’ messianic reign begins now, in the reconciliation of peoples and the revelation of truth, rather than being deferred entirely to the end of the age.
Toward a Realized Eschatology: The Taheb and the Second Coming
Considering Jesus through the Samaritan lens lends support to a more realized or inauguraled eschatology in Christian theology. Realized eschatology is the view that the “end-time” promises have, in a significant way, already been fulfilled in Jesus’ first coming and in the ongoing life of the Church. The Samaritan expectation – with its emphasis on understanding, worship, and covenant renewal in the present – dovetails with the New Testament testimony that many end-times hopes were realized in Christ. As one scholar summarizes, the events Jews expected at the end of days did occur in Jesus’ ministry: “The Messiah would come, God would pronounce final judgment on sin, the dead would rise (in foretaste), the Son of Man would ascend to heaven, and the Spirit would be poured out – these things all happened in the ministry of Jesus himself.”
In Jesus’ arrival, ministry, death, and resurrection, the long-awaited deliverance took concrete form. For example, on the cross Jesus judged sin and defeated the powers of evil; in rising, he began the resurrection harvest; in sending the Spirit, he inaugurated the New Creation. Thus, a theology that highlights these accomplished realities finds resonance with the idea that Jesus has already fulfilled the role of the Restorer. The woman at the well did not need to wait for a future age to learn the truth – “the hour…now is” when true worshippers worship in Spirit and truth (John 4:23). Likewise, Christians experiencing the presence of Christ’s Spirit and lordship even now may see the Second Coming not as Christ’s first real step into messianic kingship, but as the consummation of a reign and restoration that is already underway.
In this perspective, the Second Coming of Christ remains a vital doctrine – a future hope of ultimate justice and resurrection – but it is not characterized primarily by Jesus arriving to begin an earthly Davidic monarchy. Rather, it is the full unveiling of the kingship he already possesses (Matthew 28:18: “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me” ). The Samaritan paradigm reinforces that Jesus’ kingship does not derive from sitting on David’s literal throne in Jerusalem, but from his unique authority as the divine Word and prophet-king who unites all peoples. In other words, the Christian hope shifts from political futurism to a hope that is both already and not yet. We already have the Messianic Restorer – Christ has come and taught us “all things” necessary for salvation – and we await the final manifestation of his victory over evil and death. This view is akin to the classic “inaugurated eschatology” or “already/not yet” framework in Christian theology, which holds that Jesus’ first coming inaugurated the Kingdom of God and his second coming will finalize it. The Samaritan expectation and its fulfillment in John 4 strongly bolster the “already” side of that equation. It reminds us that Messiah’s work is fundamentally redemptive and revelatory, something that has already been accomplished in Christ’s earthly ministry and is available now to those who believe.
From this vantage point, the Christian futurist narrative that heavily emphasizes a coming earthly Davidic reign can be seen as an incomplete picture. If taken in a one-sided way, such futurism might inadvertently revert to the very nationalistic mindset that Jesus often corrected. The Gospels show Jesus consistently broadening the scope of messiahship: he is the son of David, yes, but also greater than David (Matthew 22:41–45); he is King of the Jews, yet his mission encompasses Samaritans and Gentiles, making them into one people of God. In the Book of Acts and the Epistles, Jesus is presented as already enthroned at God’s right hand (Acts 2:32–36) and already reigning as head of the church, which is his Kingdom on earth (Colossians 1:13). Thus, the Samaritan concept of a Taheb who brings knowledge and unity finds its echo in the church’s experience of Christ. It challenges us to not only look forward to a political Golden Age, but to recognize the realized dimensions of Christ’s messianic work.
To be clear, this is not to deny the Second Coming or the future hope – virtually all Christian traditions affirm that Jesus will return in glory to judge the living and the dead. Rather, the question is what we expect Him to do at that return. The Samaritan-Christian insight would caution against expecting merely a restored Davidic monarchy ruling an earthly Jerusalem. Instead, it encourages Christians to understand the Second Coming as the culmination of what the Taheb-Messiah has already begun: the universal revelation of God’s truth, the resurrection and ingathering of all God’s people (note that Samaritan eschatology also included the resurrection of the dead and the restoration of all Israel ), and the final removal of sin – all under the kingship of Christ, the Lamb who already conquered by his blood. In this way, the Samaritan expectation, rather than being a curious outlier, becomes a corrective lens. It corrects any Christian eschatology that is tempted to revert to an Old Covenant-style national kingdom, and it reinforces an understanding of Jesus’ mission as fundamentally about spiritual restoration and truth that is available here and now.
Conclusion
The Samaritan expectation of a Mosaic Taheb offers a provocative counterpoint to traditional Davidic messianism and to certain futurist Christian scenarios. Rooted in the Pentateuch, the Samaritan vision anticipated a messiah who would be a prophet-redeemer like Moses – one who reveals God’s will, reunites the people, and heals their worship. This stood in contrast to the prevailing Jewish hope for a Davidic king who would liberate Israel and reign on an earthly throne. In the Gospel of John, these two paradigms meet at Jacob’s well. Jesus embraces the Samaritan understanding, presenting himself as the very Taheb who brings living water and true revelation. By doing so, he sidesteps the limitations of a nationalist, Davidic mold and reveals a messianic identity focused on truth, spirit, and universality. The Samaritan woman’s declaration – “He will explain everything to us” – finds its answer in Jesus’ person and teaching, and her people’s acclamation of Jesus as “Savior of the world” shows the expansive scope of his mission.
For Christian theology, this dynamic reframes the Second Coming question. It suggests that Christ’s second advent should not be conceived as his first real chance to fulfill messianic duties (as if his kingship were on hold until a future date). Rather, Jesus has already fulfilled, in large measure, the role of the promised Restorer: he has established the basis of true worship, revealed the Father, and achieved the decisive victory over sin and death. In light of the Taheb paradigm, the Second Coming is best understood as the full manifestation of Christ’s reign and the completion of the restoration already begun. Such a view aligns with a non-futurist or realized eschatology, which sees the kingdom as “already” present though “not yet” consummated. It challenges believers to recognize that the Messiah’s work is a present reality – the greater Moses has come – even as we await the final chapters of God’s plan.
Ultimately, the Samaritans’ faith in Jesus illuminates a truth at the heart of the Gospel: Jesus Christ fulfills all righteous hopes. He is the prophet like Moses who declares God’s word and the Son of David who rules forever – yet his rule transcends the earthly categories of David’s throne. By exploring the Samaritan expectation, Christians can gain a richer appreciation of Jesus’ multifaceted messianic identity. It guards against reducing the vibrant New Testament portrait of Christ to only a future political monarch. Instead, it lifts up Jesus as Teacher, Savior, and King even now, inviting us to live in the light of his revealed truth and to worship the Father in Spirit and in truth, as the hour has already come (John 4:23). In this way, the Mosaic Taheb expectation doesn’t negate the Second Coming, but it deepens our understanding of the Messiah who will come again – the one who has already inaugurated the promised restoration, and who will faithfully bring it to completion in the age to come.
Sources:
The Samaritan Pentateuch and later Samaritan traditions on the Taheb
Biblical texts: Deuteronomy 18:15–18; 2 Samuel 7:12–16; John 4:19–26; John 18:36; Acts 3:22
Koester, Craig R., “‘The Savior of the World’ (John 4:42)”, JBL 109/4 (1990): 665–679
Pummer, Reinhard, “Samaritans, Galileans, and Judeans in Josephus and John”, JSHJ 18 (2020): 77–99 .
Ligonier Ministries (W. R. Godfrey), “Meeting the Messiah” (Commentary on John 4:25–26)
BYU Religious Studies Center, “Fourth Gospel and Expectations of the Jewish Messiah”
