3

Ezekiel 45:22 LSV

And the prince has prepared on that day, for himself, and for all the people of the land, a bullock, a sin-offering.

Improve this question
2

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
3

This is part of a vision given to Ezekiel in the 25th year of the Jewish exile (Ezek. 40:1), which equates with the 14th year of the fall of the city of Jerusalem, i.e. 28th April 573 B.C. The vision is of a new temple that has never yet been built on Earth, a messenger looking like bronze, with a linen cord and a measuring rod declaring the measurements of it. In the vision it was viewed from a very high mountain in Israel, with buildings to the south that appeared to be those of a city.

From chapter 44 we learn of the Prince, the Levites, and the Priests who are to serve, but no names are given to any of them. We do learn in chapter 55 that there are princes - plural.

The verse in question says of the Prince (singular) that he is to "provide a bull as a sin offering for himself and for all the people of the land." That alone rules out this Prince as being Jesus Christ, who has no sin. Rams and a male goat are also part of seven days of sin offerings, with grain and oil.

Chapter 46 verse two speaks of the Priests making the sacrifices. The Prince provides them. Chapter 47 speaks further of the Prince giving property inheritances to any of his sons. But at no point is this Prince given a name.

Answer: The Prince in the verse provides the animals, grain and oil for on-going sacrifices, which the Priests sacrifice in this visionary, future temple.

Improve this answer
3
  • 1
    Yes. Solomon and David were both said to have "sacrificed" when in fact they only provided the animals, etc for the priests to sacrifice. I have added my own answer in one of the duplicate questions. I think Ezekiel envisions a Davidic King, someone like Zerubbabel if he had graduated from governor to king. hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/59012/… Commented Jan 13 at 20:00
  • @Anne: As I am not allowed to propose a direct edit of your answer, I would like to propose it like this: I think "that has never yet been built" should be written like "that has not yet been built". Hope this helps. Commented Jan 23 at 18:22
  • @Yo-él I understand why you (and others) would prefer 'not yet' to 'never yet'. This hinges on interpretations of eschatology prophecies. As this Q is not about that, but simply asks "Who" makes the offering, and not "When" the offering is made, I have avoided opening up that particular 'rabbit hole' by a simple, factual "has never yet". Often comments can spawn into heated debates, which this site actively discourages. But I appreciate your point nevertheless and thank you for noticing such details. Commented Jan 23 at 18:38

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.