Ezekiel 44:3

It is for the prince; the prince, he shall sit in it to eat bread before the LORD; he shall enter by the way of the porch of that gate, and shall go out by the way of the same.

EXPOSITORY (ENGLISH BIBLE)

Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers

(3) The prince.—The Rabbis understood this to refer to the Messiah, and unquestionably the same person must be meant as by David in Ezekiel 34:23-24; Ezekiel 37:24. This gives another and a conclusive reason for regarding the sacrificial worship of Ezekiel 46 as symbolical.

To eat bread before the Lord.—This is the common scriptural expression for partaking of the sacrifices (see Genesis 31:54; Exodus 18:12), and there is no reason for restricting it to the shew-bread and other unbloody offerings. The eating of the latter was an exclusively priestly prerogative, and the “prince” of Ezekiel, though greatly distinguished, is not in any way endued with priestly functions. He is to partake of his sacrificial meals within this highly-honoured gate, while the people eat in the outer court. There has been much discussion as to whether the prince was to go in and out by this gateway, or only, having entered by one of the others, to eat in this. The language here seems sufficiently plain, and if there could be any doubt, it would be removed by Ezekiel 46:1-2; Ezekiel 46:8; Ezekiel 46:10; Ezekiel 46:12. It appears there that the prince is always to enter and leave by this gate except “in the solemn feasts;” then he is to enter in the midst of the people, by either the north or the south gate, and go out by the opposite one.

Benson Commentary

Ezekiel 44:3. It is for the prince — The words, It is, are not in the Hebrew, which is only, For the prince; and therefore the meaning seems to be, that this gate should, in general, be shut for, or to the prince, as well as to private persons; even he should not have the liberty of entering in at it, except at certain seasons. Dr. Waterland translates the clause thus: As to the prince, since he is prince, he shall sit, &c. The kings of Judah had a distinguished place in the temple; a kind of tribunal placed opposite the eastern gate: see Ezekiel 46:12; 2 Chronicles 6:12-13. By the prince here is probably meant the chief governor of the Jews after the captivity, such as were Zerubbabel and Nehemiah, for Sheshbazzar, or Zerubbabel, is called the prince of Judah, Ezra 1:8. The prince, he shall sit in it to eat bread before the Lord — To eat part of the peace-offerings which were provided at his charge: see chap, Ezekiel 46:2. Bread stands for all sorts of entertainments, and particularly for a religious feast made of the remainder of a sacrifice: see the margin.

Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary

44:1-31 This chapter contains ordinances relative to the true priests. The prince evidently means Christ, and the words in ver. 2, may remind us that no other can enter heaven, the true sanctuary, as Christ did; namely, by virtue of his own excellency, and his personal holiness, righteousness, and strength. He who is the Brightness of Jehovah's glory entered by his own holiness; but that way is shut to the whole human race, and we all must enter as sinners, by faith in his blood, and by the power of his grace.

Barnes' Notes on the Bible

The prince - Foretold under the name of David Ezekiel 34:24. The rabbis understood this to be the Messiah.

To eat bread - See Leviticus 2:3; Leviticus 24:9; according to the old Law these feasts belonged only to the priests; none of the rest of the congregation, not even the king, might partake of them. The new system gives to the "prince" a privilege which he did not before possess; the prince, as the representative of the Messiah, standing in a higher position than the kings of old. "To eat bread" may also include participation in the animals sacrificed, portions of which were reserved for those of the people who offered them.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary

3. the prince—not King Messiah, as He never would offer a burnt offering for Himself, as the prince is to do (Eze 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.

eat bread before the Lord—a custom connected with sacrifices (Ge 31:54; Ex 18:12; 24:11; 1Co 10:18).

Matthew Poole's Commentary

For the prince; for the king, say some; if so, then the door shut was the door, not of the temple, but of the east gate of the priests’ court. The high priest, and the second priest, say others, and indeed this is most likely.

He shall sit: the king might sit before the Lord, others might not, and the priests stood ministering, as Hebrews 10:11. Perhaps the high priest might have some privilege to sit, when others might not.

To eat bread: if understood of the king, it was his eating of the sacrifice, that part of it which was allowed to the offerer. If this prince be the high priest, this bread was the show-bread, which it seems he might sit and eat in or near the porch of the gate, whereas other priests were bound to eat in the common refectory, as appears, Ezekiel 42:13.

He shall enter; he may, it is his privilege; or he shall, that is, it is his duty to enter at this, and to come out at it, that the people may know which way to look, when they would see their high priest enter to make atonement: which may be mystical, and include our looking to the great High Priest.

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

It is for the prince: the prince shall sit in it to eat bread before the Lord,.... Or, "as for the prince, the prince shall sit in it" (e); in the gate which is shut to others: not the high priest, as Jarchi, though he might have a particular seat in the temple, as Eli had in the tabernacle, 1 Samuel 1:9, where he might eat the bread and flesh of holy things: nor the political prince, the king of Israel, though he might have a place in the temple peculiar to himself; see 2 Chronicles 6:12, 2 Chronicles 24:31, and the Jews say only the kings of the house of David were allowed to sit in the sanctuary: but the King Messiah, as Kimchi and Ben Melech rightly interpret it, is here meant; who before, in this prophecy, is called David a Prince, Ezekiel 34:24, he who is the Prince of peace; Michael the great Prince; the Prince of life, and the Prince of the kings of the earth; the Messiah the Prince. Such who interpret the gate of the gate of heaven understand this of Christ's sitting down there at his Father's right hand, on the same throne with him, having done his work, and being at ease, and in honour; and of his enjoyment of glory there, as the heavenly glory is sometimes signified by a feast, by sitting down at a table, and eating bread in the kingdom of God, Matthew 8:11, and so it may intend his being in the presence of God with the utmost delight and joy; having that glory he had with him before the world was, and all power in heaven and in earth; dispensing gifts and grace to men, and receiving honour and glory from them, and seeing the travail of his soul with satisfaction: but why may it not be understood, more consistent with the scope of the vision, of his sitting in his church, at his table there with his saints, eating with them, and they with him, in his word and ordinances before the Lord? see Sol 1:12,

he shall enter by the way of the porch of that gate, and shall go out by the way of the same; which some explain of Christ's ascension to heaven, and descent from thence in the same way; he went up to heaven in the eastern part of the world, from the mount of Olives, to the east of Jerusalem; and in like manner shall he descend, and his feet shall stand on that mount, Acts 1:11, but it may be interpreted of his going in and out of his church at his will and pleasure; and affording his gracious presence and fellowship with himself in his house and ordinances,

(e) "veruntamen ad principem quod attinet, princeps ipse inquam", &c. Piscator; "quantum ad principem"; "princeps sedebit in ea", Noldius, Ebr. Part. Concord. p. 120.

Geneva Study Bible

It is for the prince; the prince, he shall sit in it to eat bread before the LORD; he shall enter by the way of the porch of that gate, and shall go out by the way of the same.

EXEGETICAL (ORIGINAL LANGUAGES)

Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

3. The only exception is in favour of the prince. He shall eat bread in this gate, i.e. partake of the sacrificial meal there. Though not expressly stated it is implied that the meal shall be partaken of in the porch of the gate, which looked into the outer court. The statements in ch. 46 make it probable that even the prince did not enter through the E. gate from the outside, but passed into the outer court through some other gate, and entered the porch from the court.

Ezekiel 44:4-9. The former practice of employing uncircumcised foreigners to minister and to keep the charge of the house shall absolutely cease.

Pulpit Commentary

Verse 3. - It is for the prince conveys an erroneous impression, as if the edict, excluding all from passing through the east outer gate, did not apply to the prince; but even for him the gate was not to serve as a mode of entrance into the temple, or, if so, only on exceptional occasions (see on Ezekiel 46:2), but merely as a place to sit in. The Revised Version accurately renders the words, As for the prince, he shall sit therein as prince, etc. That the "prince" here alluded to (הַגָּשִׂיא) could not have been the Prince David, i.e. the Messiah already spoken of (Ezekiel 34:23, 24; Ezekiel 37:24), but must have denoted the civic authorities of the new community of Israel, "the civil head of the theocracy," Havernick infers from Ezekiel 45:8, 9, where the coming "prince" is contrasted with Israel's previous rulers who oppressed their subjects, from the absence of some such characteristic predicate as "shepherd" or "king," which would, he thinks, have been attached to the word "prince" had it been intended to designate Messiah, from the prince's offering for himself a sin offering (Ezekiel 45:22), from the allusion to his sons (Ezekiel 46:16), and from what is recorded about his behavior in worship (Ezekiel 46:2); but none of these statements concerning the "prince' forbids his identification with Messiah, unless on the supposition that it was already understood Messiah should be a Divine-human Personage. This, however, had not then been so distinctly revealed as to be widely and accurately known. Hence it seems enough to say that while the "prince" would have his highest antitype in the Messiah, he would also have, though in a lower and lesser degree, an antitype in every righteous ruler (if ever there should be such) who might subsequently preside over Israel (see on Ezekiel 37:25). The phrase, to eat bread before the Lord, while referring in the first instance to those sacrificial meals which, under the Law, commonly accompanied unbloody offerings, as the meat offerings (Leviticus 2:3), the showbread (Leviticus 24:9), and the unleavened leaves of the Passover (Exodus 12:18; Leviticus 23:6; Numbers 28:17; Deuteronomy 16:3), and could only be partaken of by the priests, in the second instance signified to partake of sacrificial meals in general, even of such as consisted of the portions of flesh which were eaten in connection with ordinary bloody offerings (Genesis 31:54; Exodus 18:12). If, after Kliefoth, the former be adopted as the import of the phrase here, then the thought will be that in the new cultus the prince should enjoy a privilege which under the old was not possessed even by the king; if, after Keil, the second view be preferred, the sense will amount to this, that under the regulations of the future the prince should have the favor accorded him "of holding his sacrificial meals in the gate," whereas the people should only be permitted to hold theirs "in the court," or "in the vicinity of the sacrificial kitchens." The way of the porch is mentioned as the ingress and egress for the prince; which implies that he should obtain access to the outer court by either the north or the south gate, since the outer door of the east gate was shut. This renders it probable that Ezekiel was himself standing on the outside of the east gate (see on ver. 1). Ezekiel 44:3

Keil and Delitzsch Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament

The Place of the Prince in the Sanctuary. - Ezekiel 44:1. And he brought me back by the way to the outer gate of the sanctuary, which looked toward the east; and it was shut. Ezekiel 44:2. And Jehovah said to me, This gate shall be shut, shall not be opened, and no one shall enter thereby; because Jehovah, the God of Israel, has entered by it, it shall be shut. Ezekiel 44:3. As for the prince, as prince he shall sit therein, to eat bread before Jehovah; from the way to the porch of the gate shall he go in, and from its way shall he go out. - From the inner court where Ezekiel had received the measurements of the altar of burnt-offering and the instructions concerning its consecration (Ezekiel 43:5.), he is taken back to the east gate of the outer court, and finds this gate, which formed the principle entrance to the temple, closed. Jehovah explains this fact to him through the angel (ויּאמר is to be understood according to Ezekiel 43:6 and Ezekiel 43:7) thus: "this gate is to be shut, because Jehovah, the God of Israel, has entered into the temple thereby," as we have already learned from Ezekiel 43:2. Only the prince, as prince, was allowed to sit in it for the purpose of holding sacrificial meals there. So far the meaning of the words is clear and indisputable. For there can be no doubt whatever that Ezekiel 44:3 introduces a more precise statement concerning the closing of the gate; in other words, that the right of sitting in the gate to eat bread before Jehovah, which is conceded to the priest, is intended as an explanation, resp. modification and limitation, of the statement והיה (Ezekiel 44:2). On the other hand, the more precise definition of the prerogative granted to the prince in Ezekiel 44:3 is not quite clear, and therefore open to dispute. Such a prerogative is already indicated in the prominence expressly given to the prince, consisting partly in the fact that את־הנּשׂיא is written first in an absolute form, and partly in the expression נשׂיא הוּא, which is repeated in the form of a circumstantial clause, "prince is he," equivalent to "because he is prince, he is to sit there." נשׂיא is neither the high priest, as many of the older commentators supposed, nor a collective term for the civil authorities of the people of Israel in the Messianic times (Hvernick), but the David who will be prince in Israel at that time, according to Ezekiel 34:23-24, and Ezekiel 37:24. "To eat bread before Jehovah" signifies to hold a sacrificial meal at the place of the divine presence, i.e., in the temple court, and is not to be restricted, as Kliefoth supposes, to that sacrificial meal "which was held after and along with the bloodless sacrifices, viz., the minchoth, and the shew-breads, and the sweet loaves of the Passover." There is no authority in the usage of the language for this literal interpretation of the expression "to eat bread," for אכל לחם means in general to partake of a meal, compare Genesis 31:54, etc., and especially Exodus 18:12, where Jethro "eats bread before God" with Aaron and the elders of Israel, that is to say, joins in a sacrificial meal composed of זבחים or slain-offerings. According to this view, which is the only one supported by usage, the prerogative secured to the נשׂיא of the future is not "that of participating in the sacrificial meals (of the priests), which were to be held daily with the minchoth and shew-bread, in opposition to the law which prevailed before" (Kliefoth), but simply that of holding his sacrificial meals in the gate, i.e., in the porch of the gate, whereas the people were only allowed to hold them in the court, namely, in the vicinity of the sacrificial kitchens.

There is also a difference of opinion concerning the meaning of the second statement in Ezekiel 44:3 : "from the way of the porch of the gate shall he enter in, and thence shall he go out." The suffix in מדּרכּו can only refer to אוּלם, "from the way from which he came (entered), from this way shall he go out again." Hitzig follows the Rabbins, who understand the passage thus: "as the gate is to remain shut, he must go by the way to the porch which is directed inwardly, toward the court (Ezekiel 40:9). He must have gone into the outer court through the north or the south gate, and by the way by which he came he also went back again." But Kliefoth argues, in objection to this, that "if the prince was to eat the bread in the porch, the entrance through the south or the north gate would be of no use to him at all; as the gate which could be shut was at that door of the porch which was turned toward the outer court." Moreover, he affirms that it is not at all the meaning of the text that he was to eat the bread in the porch, but that he was to eat it in the gate-building, and he was to come thither מדּרך אוּלם השּׁער, i.e., "from the place which served as a way to the gate porch, that is to say, the walk from the eastern entrance of the gate-building to the front of the porch, and from that was he to go out again." The prince, therefore, was "to go into the gate-building as far as the front of the porch through the eastern entrance, there to eat his bread before Jehovah, and to come out again from thence, so that the gate at the western side of the gate porch still remained shut." But we cannot regard either of these views as correct. There is no firm foundation in the text for Kliefoth's assertion, that he was not to eat the bread in the porch, but in the gate-building. It is true that the porch is not expressly mentioned as the place where the eating was to take place, but simply the gate (בּו); yet the porch belonged to the gate as an integral part of the gate-building; and if דּרך אוּלם is the way to the porch, or the way leading to the porch, the words, "by the way to the porch shall he enter in," imply clearly enough that he was to go into the porch and to eat bread there. This is also demanded by the circumstance, as the meaning of the words cannot possibly be that the prince was to hold his sacrificial meal upon the threshold of the gate, or in one of the guard-rooms, or in the middle of the gateway; and apart from the porch, there were no other places in the gate-building than those we have named. And again, the statement that the gate on the western side of the gate porch was to be shut, and not that against the eastern wall, is also destitute of proof, as דּרך אוּלם, the way to the porch, is not equivalent to the way "up to the front of the porch." And if the prince was to hold the sacrificial meal behind the inner gate, which was closed, how was the food when it was prepared to be carried into the gate-building? Through a door of one of the guard-rooms? Such a supposition is hardly reconcilable with the significance of a holy sacrificial meal. In fact, it is a question whether eating in the gate-building with the inner door closed, so that it was not even possible to look toward the sanctuary, in which Jehovah was enthroned, could be called eating לפני.

Hitzig's explanation of the words is not exposed to any of these difficulties, but it is beset by others. At the outset it is chargeable with improbability, as it is impossible to see any just ground why the prince, if he was to hold the sacrificial meal in the porch of the east gate, should not have been allowed to enter through this gate, but was obliged to take the circuitous route through the south or the north gate. Again, it is irreconcilable with the analogous statements in Ezekiel 46. According to Ezekiel 46:1., the east gate of the inner court was to be shut, namely, during the six working days; but on the Sabbath and on the new moon it was to be opened. Then the prince was to come by the way of the gate porch from without, and during the preparation of his sacrifice by the priests to stand upon the threshold of the gate and worship. This same thing was to take place when the prince desired to offer a freewill offering on any of the week-days. The east gate was to be opened for him to this end; but after the conclusion of the offering of sacrifice it was to be closed again, whereas on the Sabbaths and new moons it was to stand open till the evening (Ezekiel 46:12 compared with Ezekiel 44:2). It is still further enjoined, that when offering these sacrifices the prince is to enter by the way of the gate porch, and to go out again by the same way (Ezekiel 44:2 and Ezekiel 44:8); whereas on the feast days, on which the people appear before Jehovah, every one who comes, the priest along with the rest, is to go in and out through the north or the south gate (Ezekiel 44:9 and Ezekiel 44:10). If, therefore, on the feast days, when the people appeared before Jehovah, the prince was to go into the temple in the midst of the people through the north or the south gate to worship, whereas on the Sabbaths and new moons, on which the people were not required to appear before the Lord, so that the prince alone had to bring the offerings for himself and the people, he was to enter by the way of the porch of the east gate, and to go out again by the same, and during the ceremony of offering the sacrifice was to stand upon the threshold of the inner east gate, it is obvious that the going in and out by the way of the porch of the gate was to take place by a different way from that through the north or the south gate. This other way could only be through the east gate, as no fourth gate existed. - The conclusion to which this brings us, so far as the passage before us is concerned, is that the shutting of the east gate of the outer court was to be the rule, but that there were certain exceptions which are not fully explained till Ezekiel 46, though they are hinted at in the chapter before us in the directions given there, that the prince was to hold the sacrificial meal in this gate. - The outer east gate, which was probably the one chiefly used by the people when appearing before the Lord in the earlier temple, both for going in and coming out, is to be shut in the new temple, and not to be made use of by the people for either entrance or exit, because the glory of the Lord entered into the temple thereby. This reason is of course not to be understood in the way suggested by the Rabbins, namely, that the departure of the Shechinah from the temple was to be prevented by the closing of the gate; but the thought is this: because this gateway had been rendered holy through the entrance of the Shechinah into the temple thereby, it was not to remain open to the people, so as to be desecrated, but was to be kept perpetually holy. This keeping holy was not prejudiced in any way by the fact that the prince held the sacrificial meal in the gate, and also entered the court through this gateway for the purpose of offering his sacrifice, which was made ready by the priests before the inner gate, and then was present at the offering of the sacrifice upon the altar, standing upon the threshold of the inner gate-building. דּרך אוּלם is therefore the way which led from the outer flight of steps across the threshold past the guard-rooms to the gate porch at the inner end of the gate-building. By this way the priest was to go into the gate opened for him, and hold the sacrificial meal therein, namely, in the porch of this gate. That the offering of the sacrifice necessarily preceded the meal is assumed as self-evident, and the law of sacrifice in Ezekiel 46 first prescribes the manner in which the prince was to behave when offering the sacrifice, and how near to the altar he was to be allowed to go.