Ezekiel 34 and the Apostles

[MH84]

I understand that this chapter is rich with future references to Jesus.

Ezekiel 34 (NKJB)

Quote:
23 I will establish one shepherd over them, and he shall feed them—My servant David. He shall feed them and be their shepherd. 24 And I, the LORD, will be their God, and My servant David a prince among them; I, the LORD, have spoken.
25 “I will make a covenant of peace with them, and cause wild beasts to cease from the land; and they will dwell safely in the wilderness and sleep in the woods. 26 I will make them and the places all around My hill a blessing; and I will cause showers to come down in their season; there shall be showers of blessing. 27 Then the trees of the field shall yield their fruit, and the earth shall yield her increase. They shall be safe in their land; and they shall know that I am the LORD, when I have broken the bands of their yoke and delivered them from the hand of those who enslaved them. 28 And they shall no longer be a prey for the nations, nor shall beasts of the land devour them; but they shall dwell safely, and no one shall make them afraid. 29 I will raise up for them a garden of renown, and they shall no longer be consumed with hunger in the land, nor bear the shame of the Gentiles anymore. 30 Thus they shall know that I, the LORD their God, am with them, and they, the house of Israel, are My people,” says the Lord GOD.’”
31 “You are My flock, the flock of My pasture; you are men, and I am your God,” says the Lord GOD.
www.biblegateway.com

Is there a possibility that the apostles and early Christians (not you and me) saw Jesus as being the annoited ruler or prince of the nations; the new David. Not neccessarily God the Son. I know this is a bit un-Christian thing to say, but I just want to know, so that my faith may mature and that I will truly believe without doubts.

Furthermore, in Acts 10:38 it says that Peter stated: “…God had anointed him with the Holy Spirit and with power, and because God was with him, Jesus went about doing good and curing all who had fallen into the power of the devil…” Jerusalem Bible (emphasis mine)

 

[banjo]

Regarding EZ 34:23-31 the Navarre Bible Commentary offers the following:

“There are important fresh nuances in this messianic oracle about hope in a messiah-king when it is compared with the passage in Isaiah’s ‘Book of Immanuel’ (cf. Is 6-12). The messiah-king is called David (vv. 23-24) because he will have the qualities of that great king from Bethlehem; he will be a ‘prince’, that is, not a king in the political sense; he will be God’s ‘servant’, coming in all humility, without pomp or ceremony. There will be a new flock (a new people), a new shepherd, messiah and a new Covenant, bringing the blessings contained in the ‘Code of holiness’ (cf. Lv 26:3-13), and no danger will threaten or strike them (cf. Jer 23:5-6). Ezekiel does not mention the possibility of this new Covenant being broken; he sees it as inviolable. Not even the wicked, who will be outside it and gain no benefit from it, will be able to break it.”

A good thing to remember is that the Apostles were Jews and as such were reared with the OT which included the messianic prophecies. Note in Jn 1:41…Andrew finds his brother Simon (Peter) and says, “We have found the messiah.”

 

[MH84]

The messiah-king is called David (vv. 23-24) because he will have the qualities of that great king from Bethlehem; he will be a ‘prince’, that is, not a king in the political sense; he will be God’s ‘servant’, coming in all humility, without pomp or ceremony. There will be a new flock (a new people), a new shepherd, messiah and a new Covenant, bringing the blessings contained in the ‘Code of holiness’ (cf. Lv 26:3-13), and no danger will threaten or strike them (cf. Jer 23:5-6).

I still need to ask:
Is there a possibility that the apostles and early Christians (not you and me) saw Jesus as being the annoited ruler or prince of the nations; the new David. Not neccessarily God the Son.

What you quoted is what I am talking about; the Jews expected a Messiah, and the apostles believed Jesus to be the Messiah, the servant of God. I am not sure if anything more though ie. God the Son (even though that term is not in the bible)

 

[NotWorthy]

I still need to ask:
Is there a possibility that the apostles and early Christians (not you and me) saw Jesus as being the annoited ruler or prince of the nations; the new David. Not neccessarily God the Son.

I think most expected a ruler such as David. But Peter, in Matthew 16 reveals that they understood him to be the “Son of the Living God”. Jesus shows us that this is divinely revealed, so it’s pretty safe to think that all of Israel expected a secular ruler to overthrow Rome and reunite Israel.

 

[banjo]

I think most expected a ruler such as David. But Peter, in Matthew 16 reveals that they understood him to be the “Son of the Living God”. Jesus shows us that this is divinely revealed, so it’s pretty safe to think that all of Israel expected a secular ruler to overthrow Rome and reunite Israel.

Exactly! Add to that the glory of our Lord revealed at the Transfiguration.

Originally Posted by MH84 forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
I still need to ask:

Cf. The end of my original post…Andrew finds his brother Simon (Peter) and says, “We have found the messiah.”

This statement was made by Andrew after his** first** meeting with Jesus.

 

[MH84]

I think most expected a ruler such as David. But Peter, in Matthew 16 reveals that they understood him to be the “Son of the Living God”. Jesus shows us that this is divinely revealed, so it’s pretty safe to think that all of Israel expected a secular ruler to overthrow Rome and reunite Israel.

What is the actual difference of Jesus being proclaimed Son of God or Son of the Living God? Why I mention this is because I think we can agree that “Son of God” in itself doesn’t neccessarily mean divine or equal to God.

 

[NotWorthy]

What is the actual difference of Jesus being proclaimed Son of God or Son of the Living God? Why I mention this is because I think we can agree that “Son of God” in itself doesn’t neccessarily mean divine or equal to God.

We are all “sons of God”. Jesus is “The Son of God”.

Could that have anything to do with it. Or did Jesus understand what Peter truly meant when he said it, that Jesus was truly THE Son of God.

In other words… I don’t know.