No they were not.
"The messiah" is a quite marginal concept in the Hebrew Bible. It's actually a workaround, a relatively new concept that started to emerge when things have gone bad (i.e. First Temple was destroyed). It's so marginal that the specific term "the messiah" does not appear even once in the Hebrew Bible (as opposed to the term "a messiah" which occurs in the Hebrew Bible 39 times, and is usually translated by KJV as "an anointed (one)", except for two occurrences in Daniel (Daniel 9: 25-26) that KJV chose to translate as "the messiah" - even though the Hebrew text simply says "an anointed one", not "the anointed one". Some modern translations have corrected this mistranslation.)
The above might sound quite annoying to the average Christian, and would surely entail a fair amount of downvoting. But bear in mind that Jews (and Christian fundamentalists alike) today, often use a similar argument in order to explain to Muslims why their claim on Jerusalem is bogus - why it's political more than religious: Jerusalem is mentioned zero times in the Koran, while it's mentioned 669 times in the Hebrew Bible.
And while the Hebrew Bible never uses the term "the messiah", it's Greek equivalent - "Christ" - is used in the New Testament 240 times.
The pattern is quite clear: if a matter is important to you, you mention it over and over. If it isn't important to you, you rarely mention it, or ignore it altogether (and of course, by your very silence on that matter, you leave to the future abusers of your writings the possibility for finding "hidden prophecies" or "hints" in your every second sentence).
The actual term "the messiah" started being used among Jews only after the latest book in the Hebrew Bible was written.
So, the concept is in the Hebrew Bible, it emerged after the destruction of the First Temple, and it's rather marginal in the Hebrew Bible.
Why? When the Jews lost their temple and their sovereignty over their land, some prophets came up with prophecies that their temple and sovereignty will be restored. Be restored to what state? What was the idyllic period in the history of the Israelites? Of course: David's days. This is why the prophets were talking about a King that will continue David's legacy, even by being his descendent. That King of course would be a human being. It's never stressed directly in the Hebrew prophecies, because it was so obvious - the prophets never imagined that there would come along in the future a religion that would try to hijack their words - they were surrounded by pagan nations that showed no interest whatsoever in the Israeli faith - but even though it's not stated directly in the prophets' words, it's still very clear from an honest reading of the true messianic paragraphs in the prophets' writings, that the king they are envisioning will be nothing but a human being - a very successful one though.
The Christian evolution of the term "the messiah":
Gentile Christians took it to a totally different place. While the first Jewish followers of Jesus (while he was still alive) sincerely believed that he would be that earthly king that would drive away the Romans, which is why they referred to him as "the messiah" in its traditional Jewish sense - Gentile Christians first used the figure of Jesus as an agent of sin cleansing. This was mainly the result of the theology preached to them by Paul. It made a lot of sense to the Gentiles - since they had no background in what the Hebrew Bible is about. To be a sin cleanser, Jesus of course had to be divine in some sense, which gradually developed to him being regarded as God (with the theology of trinity coming gradually along in the 3rd century as an effort to solve to tension between two Gods: Jesus and the Jewish God, and the concept of one God).
The Gentile Christians were not actually looking for "the messiah". The term makes no sense to them: it's a term that is all about restoring the national sovereignty of the Jewish people - but they are not Jews, so how could be Jesus sold to them as the King that restores the Jewish sovereignty over the land of Israel? That would be like selling TV's in the desert - there's no need for them there.
So the Gentiles first got Jesus as God. Then in retrospect, they looked back at the origins of Jesus' story and tried to prove to themselves that the story is valid. What did they still see there, even through the oral stories that became more and more gentile and anti-Jewish? They saw a man who was admired by his followers as "the messiah" (not as God!). From that, the Gentiles concluded, "the messiah" is an honorary title, with no actual practical meaning. But to the Gentiles, Jesus is already God, hence he deserves to be given every honorary title. So let's call him also "the messiah", said the Gentiles - whatever it might actually mean.
Conclusion: The Jews never expected a divine messiah. It can be easily seen in the Hebrew prophecies found in the Hebrew Bible.
The Gentiles first got Jesus as God incarnate. They also called him "the messiah" as an honorary title, imitating the Jews who called "the messiah" anyone who was believed to be able to restore their sovereignty, without actually understanding what the term meant to the Jews. To Christians, it's not that the messiah was understood to be God. It's God who got the title "the messiah".