Dondi
Well-Known Member
Who is "the prince" in Ezekiel 44-46? Is this the Moshiach? And if it is, how is it can he offer sacrifices to the L-rd? If Moshiach is a decendent of David, he would be of the tribe of Judah, not Levi.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Who is "the prince" in Ezekiel 44-46?
- Thread starter Dondi
- Start date
According to Rashi it's the high priest, which would seem to make sense to me if you look at verses 3 and 10 onward of Chapter 44, which first deals with Leviim and then with kohanim. It goes into the particular ways they dress also, almost like royalty has specific garb, and then how they judge in line 24. And in 43 line 19 the priests are mentioned in the name of Zadok, the high priest in the time of Solomon, which is another clue. Also zadok may hint at rightousness being restored among the priests, my guess.
And in 45:8 it mentions princes during a discussion of the priests, in a reference that the land will not be theirs, which is something that had already been discussed in this section of Ezekiel.
Rashi says, however, in the name of Rabbi Menachem (?) in a comment on line 17 that prince there and everywhere else might actually mean king. I don't see conflict here. Anyone can make an offering at the Temple. It's just the priests who officiate it. That would actually make sense based on 46:2.
From a more modern perspective, this whole thing makes complete sense if it's the king. Ezekiel is supposedly a priest. He's reflecting priestly concerns that the kingship still support the structure of the Temple Cult in an open way, even to the point of appearing before the people as having made an offering, coming out the main entrance, so to speak, which would encourage the people to support the Temple as well. It also reminds the people that the priests gave up property holdings so that they could do the God stuff. So I think it's more than likely this is referring to the king.
Dauer
And in 45:8 it mentions princes during a discussion of the priests, in a reference that the land will not be theirs, which is something that had already been discussed in this section of Ezekiel.
Rashi says, however, in the name of Rabbi Menachem (?) in a comment on line 17 that prince there and everywhere else might actually mean king. I don't see conflict here. Anyone can make an offering at the Temple. It's just the priests who officiate it. That would actually make sense based on 46:2.
From a more modern perspective, this whole thing makes complete sense if it's the king. Ezekiel is supposedly a priest. He's reflecting priestly concerns that the kingship still support the structure of the Temple Cult in an open way, even to the point of appearing before the people as having made an offering, coming out the main entrance, so to speak, which would encourage the people to support the Temple as well. It also reminds the people that the priests gave up property holdings so that they could do the God stuff. So I think it's more than likely this is referring to the king.
Dauer
bananabrain
awkward squadnik
dauer's explanation makes sense to me. "nassi" can mean prince. it can also mean "head of the religious court", or "king". it looks to me as if this is a prophecy about how the newly-established king (or messiah if you like) should re-establish the Temple. as the Moshiach will have a lot of outstanding legal arguments to resolve, actually, it makes sense to say "nassi", rather than "melech"; gives a sense of the complexity of the role.
b'shalom
bananabrain
b'shalom
bananabrain
I
InChristAlways
Guest
I have a question.And in 45:8 it mentions princes during a discussion of the priests, in a reference that the land will not be theirs, which is something that had already been discussed in this section of Ezekiel.
Rashi says, however, in the name of Rabbi Menachem (?) in a comment on line 17 that prince there and everywhere else might actually mean king. I don't see conflict here. Anyone can make an offering at the Temple. It's just the priests who officiate it. That would actually make sense based on 46:2.
Does Zeph 1:8 use the word "princes" as being symbolically "priests"?
The reason I ask this is because of the "curse" put on the Priests in Malachi. What is judaism views of the "princes" and "king's children" in Zeph 1? Could the "king" be symbolic of a "High Priest" for example? Thanks.
Steve
The word "sacrifice" generally denoted the burnt offerings upon the Altar in the Court outside the Sanctuary and Zeph 1 is the last place in the OT this form of the word is used?
zebach (Strong's 02077) occurs 162 times in 153 verses:
Zephaniah 1:8 "And it shall be, In the day of the LORD's sacrifice [#02077], That I will punish the princes [#08269] and the king's children, And all such as are clothed with foreign apparel.
Hosea 8:13 [For] the sacrifices [#02077] of My offerings they sacrifice flesh and eat [it,] [But] the LORD does not accept them. Now He will remember their iniquity and punish their sins. They shall return to Egypt.
Who is the "Prince of the Host" representing here for example?
Daniel 8:11 He even exalted [himself] as high as the Prince [#08269] of the host; and by him the continual is taken away, and the place of His sanctuary was cast down.[size=+2] [/size]