The Prince of Ezekial...Please Explain

[Ringo123]

I see that in Ezekial there is mention of a prince that offers a sin sacrifice in the Temple. Ive heard that most if not all Christians and Jews believe these verses (Ezekial 40...or there about) are messianic verses pertaining to the 3rd (millennial) Temple. Who is this prince and why would he offer a sin sacrifice? If Jesus was the once-and-for-all sacrifice, why would the sin sacrifice be brought back? And who is the prince if not the messiah?

 

[ViaCrucis]

I see that in Ezekial there is mention of a prince that offers a sin sacrifice in the Temple. Ive heard that most if not all Christians and Jews believe these verses (Ezekial 40...or there about) are messianic verses pertaining to the 3rd (millennial) Temple. Who is this prince and why would he offer a sin sacrifice? If Jesus was the once-and-for-all sacrifice, why would the sin sacrifice be brought back? And who is the prince if not the messiah?

Some Christians believe the Jewish Temple will be rebuilt. Not all. Most of us regard any future temple to be fundamentally irrelevant as the only relevant temple is Jesus Himself. In John's gospel, ch. 2 Jesus says, "Tear down this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." The text is clear that the temple initially being discussed is the temple structure in Jerusalem but the temple raised up is His own flesh.

For Christians, historically, the destruction of the temple in 70 AD represents a fundamental break, a culminating moment signifying that the old things are a thing of the past, as they had served their purpose in pointing toward the coming of the Christ, whom Christians believe to be Jesus.

As such for most Christians there's simply no reason to believe that a temple will be rebuilt in Jerusalem, or rather that such an event is meaningless one way or the other. Additionally most Christians today--and most of history--have been what is called "Amillennial" a somewhat confusing term as it would suggest a non-belief in the Millennium. In actuality it refers to a belief that the Millennium, mentioned only once in the Bible, near the end of John's Apocalypse, is non-literal; and ultimately refers to the entire reign of Christ from His ascension to His return. The Millennium does not refer to a time of abundant peace on earth, but the reality of Christ's reign at the right hand of the Father and the exercising of His kingdom power and authority through the preaching of the Gospel and the ministrations of the Christian Church--the proclamation of the Gospel, the administration of the Sacraments, the feeding of the hungry, etc. As the kingdom of God is not a matter of earthly power and government, but rather the reality of God breaking into our world through Jesus, the forgiveness of sin, reconciling God and man together in Christ, by His death on the cross and His resurrection from the dead.

So for most of us there is no future Millennium. Rather, when Christ comes again it is "in glory" and "to judge the living and the dead", or to quote St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 15, "deliver all things to the Father ... and God may be all in all". When Christ comes there is, indeed, peace and justice on the earth, but not for a short thousand years, but for eternity. The "new heavens and the new earth" which are mentioned by the Prophet Isaiah (Isaiah 65), and reiterated by St. John of Patmos in his Apocalypse.

This is the view of Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran, Anglican, and most Mainline Protestant churches.

As for Ezekiel's text rather specifically, he is almost certainly referring to the return from captivity. In chapter 37 the prophet sees in a vision a valley of dry bones and God commands him to command the dry bones to live again and they do, thus beginning a series of visions and statements about the return of the people from Babylon. The rebuilt temple isn't a third temple, but is rather the second temple constructed under the supervision of Zerubbabel, the same temple that was added to by Herod the Great and subsequently known as "Herod's Temple" the one destroyed by the Romans in the year 70.

Strict literalists might like to pick at details insisting that the details be understood strictly literally, but that's not a problem if one doesn't feel the need to insist on such wooden literalism on every matter of minutia. The Bible is replete with details that arguably shouldn't be read literally, such as the Prophet Joel's mention of the sun turning dark and the moon turning red--a prophecy quoted by St. Peter in the 2nd chapter of Acts as having been fulfilled, when very obviously this event did not literally transpire on Pentecost then.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Ellwood3]

I see that in Ezekial there is mention of a prince that offers a sin sacrifice in the Temple. Ive heard that most if not all Christians and Jews believe these verses (Ezekial 40...or there about) are messianic verses pertaining to the 3rd (millennial) Temple. Who is this prince and why would he offer a sin sacrifice? If Jesus was the once-and-for-all sacrifice, why would the sin sacrifice be brought back? And who is the prince if not the messiah?

Hello Ringo123,

You have asked a very good question. If the "Prince" who in Ezekiel chapter 44 offers a sin sacrifice is supposed to be Jesus (and a future Jesus) how could that make sense?

I don't think it does.

Questions like yours make me glad that today we have Bible software. It's not that commentators are always right, but they can help.

So I will take you through some of what I found.

First, know this: understanding the book of Ezekiel is not required either for salvation or for following Christ. That is good, because even for the prophets, Ezekiel--which is a beautiful book--can be somewhat weird.

So, I located the "Prince" you spoke of, and thought, what a weird passage. Time for the Bible tools.

One classic commentary is the Matthew Henry Concise. It can be found free online.

Here it is:

Bible Commentary - Matthew Henry Consise

Ezekiel 40 Commentary - Matthew Henry Commentary on the Whole Bible (Concise)

I also went to the Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Commentary.

Here is part of what it says:

3. the prince--not King Messiah, as He never would offer a burnt offering for Himself, as the prince is to do ( Ezekiel 46:4 ). The prince must mean the civil ruler under Messiah. His connection with the east gate (by which the Lord had returned to His temple) implies, that, as ruling under God, he is to stand in a place of peculiar nearness to God. He represents Messiah, who entered heaven, the true sanctuary, by a way that none other could, namely, by His own holiness; all others must enter as sinners by faith in His blood, through grace.

Here is a link: Ezekiel 44 Commentary - Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

Referring to Ezekiel 46 verses 16-18, here:

Ezekiel 46:16-18 "" 'This is what the Sovereign LORD says:..." NIV - Online Bible Study

--where it's talking about the Prince giving gifts to his sons, the Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary says:

"The mention of the prince's sons is another argument against Messiah being meant by "the prince."


If you go to the Bible Study Tools site, here:

Read and Study the Bible Online - Search, Find Verses

and this commentary, scroll down to Ezekiel and to where it says verses 16-18. Here's a link:

http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/jamieson-fausset-brown/ezekiel/ezekiel-46.html


It is helpful to understand that the Bible doesn't say that in the end, God and His people will live in Heaven, maybe floating around on clouds. The Bible says we will live as both spirit and material beings with God in our midst. (That's the book of Revelation).

In that future, is Jesus, God, Creator of everything going to have sons--and if you read these chapters in Ezekiel chapters 40 to the end--it says --here I will post the commentary first


16-18. The prince's possession is to be inalienable, and any portion given to a servant is to revert to his sons at the year of jubilee, that he may have no temptation to spoil his people of their inheritance, as formerly (compare Ahab and Naboth,1 Kings 21:1-29 ). The mention of the year of jubilee implies that there is something literal meant, besides the spiritual sense. The jubilee year was restored after the captivity [JOSEPHUS, Antiquities, 14.10,6; I Maccabees 6:49]. Perhaps it will be restored under Messiah's coming reign. Compare Isaiah 61:2 Isaiah 61:3 , where "the acceptable year of the Lord" is closely connected with the comforting of the mourners in Zion, and "the day of vengeance" on Zion's foes. The mention of the prince's sons is another argument against Messiah being meant by "the prince."


This passage is saying this "Prince" when he gives something to a servant (say, a piece of land that would have been his sons) in the Jubilee year that came along once every 50 years, that property would go back to his sons. It wouldn't permanently not be part of his descendents heritage.

This is not a passage about living on the new heaven and earth. Then there will be "asking for the taking"--also--can you imagine Jesus, by and through whom all things are created (the Gospel of John 1) going up to people every 50 years and asking for His presents back? Why would He do that?


John 1: https://www.bible.com/bible/1/jhn.1.kjv

That along with the sacrifice being made for sin, makes it clear that the "Prince" referred to here is just a human man.

The word "Prince" is capitalized (why I've been putting it in quotes) in some versions. That could lead a reader to think perhaps this is the Prince of Peace, Messiah Jesus. The word actually means a prince or ruler.

Each word actually in the text has been assigned a number. Checking that number sometimes gives more information. Here is the information for that word "prince" (also could have been translated as captain or ruler:

Strong's Hebrew: 5387. ??????? (nasiy') -- captain


Also, the context of the passage shows the temple was rebuilt, and God gave Ezekiel a vision including instructions for the people of that time, including a ruler (or prince) and how to conduct himself.

I don't believe this is even a "type" of Jesus, a foreshadowing image. One type for Jesus is the Priest Melchizedek, and when we go to Hebrews (New Testament) it talks about Jesus as the High Priest.

Here is one passage:

Hebrews 7:27 .

Here is a link to it in the free YouVersion Bible App:

https://www.bible.com/bible/1/heb.7.kjv


Here is another passage: Hebrews 9:24-27


See if you can find it by using the link above. Just click the right arrow button in Hebrews 7, and you'll be at chapter 9.

Both those passages make it definite that Jesus needs no sacrifice for sin.

You were correct about this: Jesus is the sacrifice for sin, so how could this be a passage with the prince symbolizing Jesus in some future time?

Anyway, that's the bottom line, as I hear it. There are passages in Ezekiel, like about the dry bones with that future quality. This isn't one.


Here's a link to some things about the book of Ezekiel: Book of Ezekiel ? Book Summary, Bible Study, Authors, History





This is from Phil Vischer's "What's in the Bible?" DVD series (Volume 9). Oh--it says "coming soon" at the end, because this video was posted two years ago on YouTube, but the whole series is out now.

Here is their channel, with other videos: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCiFIuW5SWY2HwVi878DVdug



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NF8NdZMftCg

 

[parsley]

Prince

Brown-Driver-Brigg's Definition

1. one lifted up, chief, prince, captain, leader
2. rising mist, vapour

Strong's Definition

From H5375; properly an exalted one, that is, a king or sheik; also a rising mist: - captain, chief, cloud, governor, prince, ruler, vapour.
​

Some say it's one of David's descendants, according to Ezekiel 34:24.
"My servant David will be prince among them"

Gill's expository describes it as a human, which I am more likely to consider the default interpretation.

"He shall sit in it to eat bread before the Lord - a custom connected with sacrifices" "Not King Messiah, as He would not be likely to offer a burnt offering, as the prince is to do"

(Genesis 31:54 ; Exodus 18:12; Exodus 24:11 ; 1 Corinthians 10:18 ).
​

I find that even when a verse carries Messianic overtones, the original meaning applied to current situations.

Here, the word "prince" could also mean captain of an army, possibly judge, possibly ruler of another country. Ezekiel was written during the exile, concurrent with Daniel who had contact with kings in Babylon. Perhaps the Babylonian king would insist on visiting the temple, and the priests had to figure out how to handle that.

Daniel 1:19
The king (Nebuchadnezzar) talked with them, and out of them all not one was found like Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah; so they entered the king's personal service.

As for every matter of wisdom and understanding about which the king consulted them, he found them ten times better than all the magicians and conjurers who were in all his realm. And Daniel continued until the first year of Cyrus the king.


Daniel 2:16

So Daniel went in and requested of the king that he would give him time, in order that he might declare the interpretation to the king.

46
Then King Nebuchadnezzar fell on his face and did homage to Daniel, and gave orders to present to him an offering and fragrant incense.

The king answered Daniel and said, "Surely your God is a God of gods and a Lord of kings and a revealer of mysteries, since you have been able to reveal this mystery."

Then the king promoted Daniel and gave him many great gifts, and he made him ruler over the whole province of Babylon and chief prefect over all the wise men of Babylon. And Daniel made request of the king, and he appointed Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-nego over the administration of the province of Babylon, while Daniel was at the king's court.

​

 

[lesliedellow]

In the Bible, and for that matter medieval Europe, prince was often used as a synonym for king or ruler. That appears to be the sense in which Ezekiel was using it. Since Ezekiel was writing during the Exile, he would have had in mind some future ruler of Israel.

Since messiah means "annointed one," and kings were anointed, the prince referred to in Ezekiel's hope for a future Israel, would have been a messiah by definition.

 

[parsley]

Another part of your question might be answered by looking at sites that talk about the red heifer.

Apocalypse Cow - NYTimes.com

Parshas Chukas - The Statute of the Torah | Neirot

The Temple Institute: The Mystery of the Red Heifer: Divine Promise of Purity