#12 - Ezekiel 40-48 (Part 6): The Messianic Prince and His Sacrifices

 Introduction to Ezekiel's "Prince"

At this point, my blogs have dealt with Ezekiel's temple (Ezek. 40-48). I have covered the subjects that pertain to the fulfillment of that prophecy which include (1) Ezekiel's role, (2) The End of the Levitical Priesthood and Genealogy, (3) The Temple Dimensions, and (4) The "forever" dwelling of God's Glory. All of these things have pointed to the second temple as a fulfillment of Ezekiel's temple prophecy and remove any notion of a future temple with its sacrifices. Still, a few other objections stand in the way of what I am presenting here and must be addressed. The next subject I will examine is the personage of one that Ezekiel calls "the prince" and his sacrificial offerings. This "prince's" offering of animal sacrifices and the entire sacrificial system mentioned in Ezekiel's temple prophecy will also be addressed in this post. These elements of Ezekiel's vision are crucial for understanding why Ezekiel's temple cannot fit any future scenario today. The crime of believing that Ezekiel spoke of a yet future temple is that future animal sacrifices are contrary to the gospel and teachings of Christ and His Apostles and belittle the work and sacrifice of Jesus' ministry, death, and resurrection.

To begin, we must first take a look at two passages that fall outside of the Ezekiel's temple prophecy and yet describe this "prince". First, Ezekiel 34:23-24 identifies this prince as both God's servant David and His shepherd,

"Then I will appoint over them one shepherd, My servant David, and he will feed them; he will feed them himself and be their shepherd. And I, the LORD, will be their God, and My servant David will be prince among them; I the LORD have spoken."

The second passage that speaks of this prince is found in Ezekiel 37:24-25, it says,

"And My servant David will be king over them, and they will all have one shepherd; and they will walk in My ordinances, and keep My statutes and follow them. And they will live on the land that I gave to My servant Jacob, in which your fathers lived; and they will live on it, they, and their sons and their sons’ sons, forever; and My servant David will be their prince forever."

When most people read that David will be their prince "forever", it is instinctual for some to connect that to the only one who has actually reigned forever, Jesus. As Dr. Michael Rydelnik accentuates in his book, The Messianic Hope, "the title 'one Shepherd' is only used in Scripture as a messianic appellation (Ezek. 34:23-24; 37:24-25)." (The Messianic Hope, pg. 78) Grant Jeffrey is direct on this point, stating, "the Prince's Portion will be reserved for use by the Nassi, the Messiah (see Ezek. 45:1-4)" (The New Temple and the Second Coming, pg. 180). William Biederwolf, in his Second Coming Bible, writes "That this verse points to the Messiah, who is called David in Isaiah 55:4, there can be no doubt (pg. 183). Still, others see the name David associated with the "prince" (Ezek. 34:23-24, 37:24-25) and foresee a time when David will be resurrected and begin to rule under the leadership of Christ. Schmitt and Laney both agree foreseeing, 

"The prince, who will be the head over Israel during the messianic age, may be the resurrected King David, Zerubbabel, or some other person appointed by the Messiah...we lean toward the view that the prince is none other than King David." (Messiah's Coming Temple, pg. 226) 

Charles Dyer reasons that a resurrected David is a more likely candidate than Jesus, stating,

"Also Ezekiel indicated that David will be the prince (nasi) of the restored people (Ezek. 34:24, 37:25). This same 'prince' will then offer sin offerings for himself during the millennial period (45:22, 46:4). Such actions would hardly be appropriate for the sinless Son of God, but they would be for David. So it seems this is a literal reference to a resurrected David." 

Yet, this cannot be referring to Jesus nor a resurrected David, according to the context of Ezekiel 40-48. The context of Ezekiel's temple describes this same prince as needing to offer a bull for a sin offering for himself and therefore clearly cannot be speaking of Jesus,

"On that day the prince shall provide for himself and all the people of the land a bull as a sin offering." (Ezek. 45:22) 

 

It is also pointed out within the context of Ezekiel's temple that this prince has physical offspring, which Jesus never had nor would David have if he were resurrected, stating,

"This is what the Lord GOD says: “If the prince gives a gift from his inheritance to any of his sons, it shall belong to his sons; it is their possession by inheritance. But if he gives a gift from his inheritance to one of his servants, it shall be his until the year of release; then it shall return to the prince. His inheritance shall be only his sons’; it shall belong to them. And the prince shall not take from the people’s inheritance, depriving them of their property; he shall give his sons inheritance from his own property, so that My people will not be scattered, anyone from his property." (Ezek. 46:16-18)

Matthew 22:30 and Mark 12:25 sets a boundary against such an idea of offspring being brought forth after the resurrection so a resurrected David is also eliminated from the realm of possible candidates as "the prince" of Ezekiel's temple, those passages read,

"For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven." (Matt. 22:30)

"For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven." (Mark 12:25)

If they cannot marry, they also cannot bring forth offspring. Likewise, Dr. Thomas Coke asserts in his commentary that this could not be speaking of Messiah nor of a resurrected David, for the Messiah has no sin and David would have all sin removed following the resurrection and would never bring forth descendants of which Ezekiel speaks,

"The prince mentioned in this vision cannot be the Messiah, but the ruler for the time being of the Jewish nation. It is directed, where he should sit in the temple to eat his share of the sacrifices, when and how he should go in and out, what he shall offer is specified very minutely for the sabbath day, for his voluntary offering, etc.. Particularly, it is direct, chap. 45:22 that at the Passover he shall offer a bullock, a sin offering for himself and all the people. (Coke's commentary on Ezekiel's temple)

Further Dr. Coke writes to the effect that the phrase "My servant David shall be prince among them", only refers to David's descendants and not to David himself,  

"To guard himself against the temptation of oppressing the people, he hath a provision of land allotted him, chap. 45:8 where it follows. 'and my princes shall not more oppress my people.' It is directed, chap. 46:16-18 that if he give land out of his inheritance to one of his children, it shall be perpetual; but if to another, it shall be only to the Jubilee. And the prince shall not take of the people's inheritance by oppression, to thrust them out of their possession: he shall give his sons inheritance out of his own possession.' These are plainly political rules for common princes, and for a succession of them."

What is even more contradictory to the future view of Ezekiel's temple is that no person is to enter through the inner Eastern gate of this temple, not even the prince. If this prince is understood as Jesus then what is pictured in Ezekiel is that even Jesus Himself is restricted from entering the Presence of God. It is told to us that the inner gate is to be shut because "the Lord God of Israel has entered by it" (Ezek. 44:2). And while the prince is allowed to "enter by way of the porch of the gate" (44:3), he is not even allowed to enter that Eastern gate. This is reiterated in chapter 46,

"the prince shall enter by way of the porch of the outer gate and stand by the post of the gate...he shall worship at the entry of the gate and then go out." (46:2)

Again, if the prince is Jesus (as some future views propose), it appears strange that the "King of kings and Lord of lords", "the Prince of Peace", our "High Priest in the Order of Melchizedek", our heavenly High Priest can enter the actual Presence in Heaven but not into the Presence on Earth. And why would Christ, who knew no sin (2 Cor. 5:21, 1 Pet. 2:22, 1 John 3:5), need to offer an animal sacrifice for Himself? Why would a resurrected David need to offer an animal sacrifice if Christ was visibly ruling and reigning on earth? The response from the future-temple view is that these future sacrifices would act as memorials of what Christ did on the cross and in His ministry. I would ask then, how have we been able to carry the message of the gospel for the last 2,000 years without those animal sacrifices as memorials?! Could we as Christians really just forget the central aspect of our faith?! Even unbelievers are aware of Christ's narrative and sacrifice on the cross. This notion of "memorial sacrifices" only accentuates the driven motivation to produce another sensational checkpoint in the end-time scenario and a heart of false-religion if we are to expect a return to animal sacrifices.

Separation From Christ

For the future temple view, the greatest downfall of their belief is that it so forcefully contradicts our Lord's finished work and what is written in Hebrews 10:18 which states that "Now where there is remission of these, there is no longer an offering for sin." They also forget that there has been a clear change and separation from animal sacrifice and ceremony and an attached penalty for associating with such practices. Hebrews 13:10-14 speaks of separation from sharing in Christ if one were to return to animal sacrifice. It is clear that believers went and sacrificed at the temple up until shortly before the temple's destruction in 70 AD at which point Hebrews 13:10-14 speaks this way, 

"We have an altar (i.e. Christ), from which those who serve the tabernacle have no right to eat. For the bodies of those animals whose blood is brought into the Holy Place by the high priest as an offering for sin are burned outside the camp. Therefore Jesus also suffered outside the gate, that He might sanctify the people through His own blood. So then, let us go out to Him outside the camp, bearing His reproach. For here we do not have a lasting city (i.e. Jerusalem), but we are seeking that which is about to come."

This is clearly speaking of the end of the sacrificial system and even of Jerusalem ceasing to exist from being the religious epicenter that it once was. Additionally, the Greek in 13:14 says that all of this "is about to come", meaning that the new system and New Jerusalem were just on the brink of being realized as different and separate from the old priesthood and temple system. But here in Hebrews 13:10 it is taken a step further to demonstrate that those who participate in animal sacrifice are cut off from Christ. As John Gill comments on this verse, 

"of such, who obstinately persisted in the ceremonies of the Law, when they were abolished; and so cut off themselves from all right to the substance of these shadows."

How then does a future temple maneuver around the clear directives in Ezekiel's temple vision for "the prince" to continue animal sacrifice?  This would be clear heresy at any future point in time. For it could be believed that those animals atoned for sin, the very thing the animal sacrifices of Ezekiel say they affect as a result of this ceremonial practice, stating, 

"And it shall be the prince's part to provide the burnt offerings...he shall provide the sin offering, the grain offering, the burnt offering, and the peace offerings, to make atonement for the house of Israel." (Ezek. 45:17)

If the New Covenant is about what is written on the heart, animal sacrifice has no place in the heart of a believer today. It should be realized, especially at this point in history, that we have had no use for the sacrificial animals or a temple or Jerusalem or a priesthood for nearly 2,000 years. This far outweighs the length of time that the sacrifices were originally being offered from the time of Moses to the destruction of the last standing temple in 70 AD (about 1,500 years). How long must we go on without a temple system before we realize that it has been completely removed forever? 5,000 years? 10,000 years? 1 million years? If you are able to comprehend this, Ezekiel could only be speaking of a time prior to the destruction of the temple in 70 AD and definitely not about the Messiah Jesus nor a future resurrected David as the one who he sees as is "the prince" in his temple vision. Still, the future temple view and so-called Torah observant communities persist in speaking of the temple in Jerusalem as being rebuilt and sacrifices resuming. 

No More Davidic Line Today

Another factor that eliminates the future view is the extinguishing of the earthly Davidic lineage. It is established as fact that there is no pure line of David that exists today. This cuts off any claims to a future existence of this "prince" in Ezekiel and further eliminates claims to a future temple being prophesied by Ezekiel. Historical accounts and modern genealogy both account for the loss of Davidic line, a necessary ingredient to continue to claim a future temple. One of the leading geneticists on the subject of Jewish genealogy, Dr. Harry Osterer, speaks to the present conditions of producing a Davidic lineage in his book,

"Shaltiel Gracian is a dedicated genealogist who hopes that with more work, a Davidic Y-chromosomal lineage will be discerned, but for the time being, it is impossible to validate the claims of any of the aspirants." (Legacy: A Genetic History of the Jewish People, pg. 107)

 Even future-temple pundit and historian, Randall Price, admits that the Davidic line has ended. He notes,

"While the committed Jews won a military victory over Antiochus IV Epiphanes and established an independent state for nearly a century, the priestly dynasty that had won the war (Hasmoneans) eventually corrupted the traditional form of Davidic government...When Rome invaded and conquered Israel in 68 BC, it appointed kings (under its control)...who had no connection to the Davidic line." (The Coming Last Days Temple, pg. 211)

He further states that all written genealogies were lost in the war that caused the collapse of Israel in 70 AD, stating, 

"When the Romans stormed the Temple Mount in AD 70, burning the temple and slaughtering its priests, they destroyed in one moment not only the stored records of ancestral genealogy and of the secrets of reproducing certain priestly items, but also those who had the knowledge to pass these facts on to future generations." (ibid. pg. 380)

The ancient account found in the Talmud also points to the religious downturn of society due to the lack of producing legitimate kings and priests (royal leadership) following the destruction of the temple and the genealogies stored therein. It states,

 "Said R. Ammi bar R. Yuda said Rab, “From the day on which the Book of Genealogies was hidden, the power of sages has grown feeble, and the light of their eyes has dimmed.” (b. Pesach 62b)

And Paul even speaks against holding to any genealogical enrollment (including the line of David) when speaking to both Titus and Timothy. Take to heart his description of how little value genealogy now has for a believer in Christ, he says,

"Do not pay attention to myths and endless genealogies, which give rise to useless speculation rather than the plan of God, which is by faith, so I urge you now." (1 Tim. 1:4)

"But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and strife and disputes about the Law, for they are useless and worthless." (Titus 3:9)

Josephus affirms these opinions, saying, "[The Romans] set fire to the repository of the archives" (Wars 6.6.3) in which the genealogical enrollments would have been recorded and protected. Unfortunately, this protection could not be afforded against the punishments inflicted by the Romans and the purest form of identifying the Davidic line was lost forever. It should be clear from every angle that attention to Davidic genealogy was important to Ezekiel's temple but at this point in time it is both lost and worthless. This is a very clear indicator that Ezekiel's temple not only envisioned a time that is in the past but even before the destruction of the last standing temple in 70 AD.

Who is "The Prince" of Ezekiel's Vision?

Once it has been established that no Davidic line can be produced in the future, we are forced to look at the past to identify a time when Ezekiel's prophecy is found true. Many that hold the future-temple view have assumed that "the prince" of Ezekiel is speaking of just one man, yet the context of Ezekiel speaks of a succession of princes. In Ezek. 45:8 the singular use of 'prince' is expounded with an appropriated plural identity as "princes". In other words, the position as "the prince" is viewed as being held by multiple people still future to Ezekiel himself. It couples "princes" with the plural pronoun "they" in that same verse. It states,

This shall be his land as a possession in Israel; so My princes shall no longer oppress My people, but they shall give the rest of the land to the house of Israel according to their tribes.”

It is true that the first part of this verse ("My princes shall no longer oppress My people") could be referring only to past princes but the second part of this verse gives the future command of portioning out the land to a succession of 'princes' which is consistent with the designated pronoun "they". This should also be clear when Ezekiel speaks of "the prince" as having offspring (Ezek. 46:16-18). From this context it becomes clear that the position of "prince" will be ruled by only one individual yet a succession of princes will rule, one at a time, after that. Ezekiel foresees his prophecy as spanning multiple generations and likewise foresees the descendants of "David the prince" taking up this role, as it was promised to David. Even some who hold the future-temple view admit that Ezekiel is speaking of a succession and not just one individual. Dr. Randall Price concedes, 

"The rabbis identified him as the Messiah, but because he is not a priest, has no priestly rights, has sons (Ezek. 46:16), and needs to offer a sin offering (Ezek. 45:22), it is preferable to view him as someone of Davidic lineage who represents the Messianic government on earth." (Price, pg. 531) 

Jeremiah the prophet puts it this way when speaking of the future succession of "princes", 

"then there will come in through the gates of this city kings and princes sitting on the throne of David, riding in chariots and on horses, they and their princes, the men of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and this city will be inhabited forever."

And Zephaniah makes it clear that in wicked times the princes would be punished but he also specifies that these princes are indeed "the king's sons", as in descendants of king David, stating,

"Then it will come about on the day of the Lord's sacrifice, that I will punish the princes, the king's sons (plural)..." (Zeph. 1:8)

So then, the question that everyone asks at this point is, 'Who is this prince?' 

Zerubbabel the Chosen Prince

While the hopes of producing a written genealogy that could identify a future Davidic line have ceased to exist, the Scripture is quite clear that past 'princes' of the line of David did exist at least up to the beginning of the second temple (516 BC). The term 'prince' when connected to David's descendants is used of Hezekiah (2 Kings 20:5), of Solomon (1 Kings 11:34), of Zedekiah (Ezek. 12:12-13; see 2 Kings 25:1-7), and of one of the returnees from Babylon named Sheshbazzar (Ezra 1:8). Sheshbazzar is thought to be one of two figures in the Bible, either Zerubbabel (cp. Ezra 1:8 and 5:16) or Shenazzar, a supposed misspelling of Sheshbazzar, (1 Chron. 3:18) the uncle of Zerubbabel and who may have carried the title of prince of the line of David until it was divinely passed to Zerubbabel according to Haggai the prophet. Haggai 2:23 clearly designates Zerubbabel as the one whom God has "chosen" as his "signet ring", a reference to the position of king and prince. Haggai states,

"'On that day', delcares the Lord of hosts, 'I will take you, Zerubbabel, son of Shealtiel, My servant', declares the Lord, 'and I will make you like a signet ring, for I have chosen you', declares the Lord of hosts."

This "signet ring" is only spoken of in similitude in one other place in Scripture, Jeremiah 22:24, and there it is clear reference to the position as king, specifically king Jehoichin (here called Coniah). It says,

“As I live,” declares the LORD, “even if Coniah the son of Jehoiakim king of Judah were a signet ring on My right hand, yet I would pull you off;"

Some have argued that Zerubbabel was never labeled explicitly as king, but when one compares the language of Jeremiah's removal of a king from his position as king with the designation "signet ring" and then reestablishes this signet ring in Haggai as one named Zerubbabel, the identity of Ezekiel's "prince" of the line of David becomes clear. Additionally, Ezekiel calls the "prince" in his vision "My servant" four times, the same identification that Haggai gives to Zerubbabel. In the New Testament we find two genealogies that both identify Zerubbabel as the predecessor of Jesus Christ (Matt. 1:12-13, Luke 3:27), the final and true king of the Davidic line. The two genealogies are different but Matthew's genealogy is very specific, he is seeking to point out the sons of David who were designated as receiving the promise of David, the position as king (2 Sam. 7:8-17). Even the book of Nehemiah indicates princely leadership that was held by Zerubbabel (and Nehemiah) in providing for the offerings of the priests just like Ezekiel speaks of the prince providing for the priests in his vision (Ezek. 45:13-25), it states,

"So all Israel in the days of Zerubbabel and Nehemiah gave the portions due the singers and the gatekeepers as each day required, and they set apart the consecrated portion for the Levites, and the Levites set apart the consecrated portion for the sons of Aaron." (Neh. 12:47)

Why would the book of Nehemiah speak of "the days of Zerubbabel" unless Zerubbabel was the one that coordinated and led the people of Israel as their prince in accomplishing such matters?! Furthermore, Jeremiah predicted the exact timing when a king would return to rule over the people of Israel, specifically in the day that the yoke of Nebuchadnezzar was broken. He says,

"For it shall come to pass in that day, saith the LORD of hosts, that I will break his yoke (i.e. Nebuchanezzar's yoke; cp. Jer. 27:8, 28:14) from off thy neck, and will burst thy bonds, and strangers shall no more serve themselves of him: But they shall serve the LORD their God, and David their king, whom I will raise up unto them." (Jer. 30:8-9)

This passage is clear that even a king from the offspring of David would be in position "in the day" that the yoke of Nebuchadnezzar was broken. The breaking of this yoke occurred in 536 BC and was at that time, by all indications, Zerubbabel; a prince of the descendants of David, called "My servant" by God Himself, bore the identity of wearing God's "signet ring", being God's "chosen" one, and who also completed the second temple. What better or more clear identity could the Bible deliver to its readers than this? Zerubbabel is the most likely to be identified as the first "prince" of this succession in Ezekiel's temple vision. He would later be succeeded by his heirs and they, in turn, would also be called "the prince". So then, we can be assured that there was indeed a prince that fulfilled the role found in Ezekiel's temple, yet any attempt at a future fulfillment finds itself entirely lacking. 

Conclusion

The theory that most have believed about the prince of Ezekiel's vision is that he is a future representation; either Christ Himself or a resurrected David or a resurrected offspring of David. All of this can be eliminated and summed up in the fact that the prince of Ezekiel is found to offer animal sacrifices as a sin offering for atonement of the sins of Israel and bears offspring, against both details Jesus and the book of Hebrews speak of as not occurring anytime in the future. The belief that these animal sacrifices are only meant as a memorial is unfounded in Scripture and when examining Ezekiel's temple we are faced with the fact that the sacrifices that Ezekiel speaks of are not memorial sacrifices that point back to Jesus' death but in fact are "to make atonement" by way of a "sin offering" (Ezek. 45:15,17,22). Jesus is the only sin offering and atonement and this is why many who hear about the future-temple view of animal sacrifices consider it heresy. 

In the end, the matter of identifying "the prince" of Ezekiel's vision is quite clearly a succession of leaders that would come from the line of David. As highlighted in Scripture, Zerubbabel and his future offspring are the clear candidates for this role as "the prince". This does not disagree with Ezekiel's temple vision and it is the logical historically expected person and people to fulfill this role. Why else did the people returning from Babylon follow Zerubbabel after the exile? It is obvious that he was their prince from the line of David who fulfilled Ezekiel's vision. If you would like to comment or have questions, please leave them here. For additional information on Ezekiel's temple, check out my YouTube channel Temple Truth. Thank you and God bless!

Up Next...

Among the debates within Bible history, the reuniting and return of all twelve of the tribes to the land of Israel has been recently viewed as still a future event. It is being said that the twelve tribes never returned to the land after their exile by the Assyrians in about 722 BC. This subject matter plays a significant role in determining the timing of Ezekiel's temple as it too speak of Ezekiel's temple being built at a time when the twelve tribes had returned to the land. Many have argued a case against a past fulfillment of just such a scenario and therefore I will address this in the most clear and concise manner. Some have spiritualized this return and pointed to the work the Christ has already done as somehow fulfilling such a scenario but this is not what Ezekiel sees at all. He points to a literal physical return, not a spiritual return. Instead, I will point to the time at which both the prophets and history saw this occur before their very eyes, again at the beginning of the return of the exiles from Babylon in 536 BC. Stay tuned!