The Book of Ezekiel: The Rabbis’ Nightmare

It is typical for anti-Christian rabbis to cite the following passage from Ezekiel to prove that the Messiah will be a mere human figure who himself will be in need of atoning sacrifices for the purification of his own sins:

“On the fourteenth day of the first month you are to have the Pesach, a feast seven days long; matzah will be eaten. On that day the prince will provide, for himself and for all the people of the land, a young bull as a sin offering. On the seven days of the feast he is to provide a burnt offering for Adonai, seven young bulls and seven rams without defect daily for the seven days, and a male goat daily as a sin offering.” Ezekiel 45:21-23 Complete Jewish Bible (CJB)

Their point is that Jesus cannot be the Davidic Messiah since, according to the NT documents, he is not a mere human and had no need for atonement seeing that he is the sinless Son of God who offered himself as the final and perfect sacrifice for sins.

The problem with this objection is that these rabbis have assumed that the prince of Ezekiel is the Messiah, despite the fact that this is nowhere stated in the text itself. They take this view as a given without bothering to prove their case, all the while ignoring the fact that not all rabbis agree with their interpretation.

For example, the noted medieval Jewish commentator Rashi believed that Ezekiel’s prince actually refers to the High Priest, and not to any Davidic ruler:  

The prince. The High Priest is a prince, and because of his importance he will be permitted to eat the meat and bread of hallowed status in that gate, which is opened for him at the time of his eating. (The Complete Jewish Bible with Rashi Commentary, Ezek. 44:3: https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/16142/jewish/Chapter-44.htm/showrashi/true#v3)

on the prince. I say that this “prince” as well as every [mention of] “the prince” in this section means the High Priest; but I heard in the name of Rabbi Menahem that it means the king. (Ibid., Ezek. 45:17: https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/16143/showrashi/true#v17; emphasis mine)

Furthermore, this interpretive move only exposes the rabbis’ duplicity and inconsistencies. They will read the phrase Messiah into a text like Ezekiel’s, even though it doesn’t use the word or employ some of the phrases associated with the Messianic ruler, i.e., “Son of David.” Yet these same rabbinic authorities refuse to see the Messiah in passages where the very term is used, such as what we find in Daniel’s prophecy:

“Seventy weeks have been determined for your people and for your holy city, to finish the transgression, to make an end of sin, to make atonement for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy, and to anoint the Holy of Holies. So you are to know and have insight that from the going out of a word to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince (Mashiach Nagid), there will be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; it will be restored and rebuilt, with plaza and moat, even in times of distress. Then after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah (Mashiach) will be cut off and have nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. And its end will come with a flood; even to the end there will be war; desolations are decreed. And he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will make sacrifice and grain offering cease; and on the wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate, even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who makes desolate.” Daniel 9:24-27 Legacy Standard Bible (LSB)

Note how the Messiah’s cutting off, which refers to a violent death, is directly associated with the termination of sin, atonement, and the ushering in of everlasting righteousness. And yet the rabbis will not interpret this as a prophecy of the coming Davidic King despite the fact that the passage uses the very words Messiah and Ruler!     

Finally, and ironically, Ezekiel actually poses a worse problem for the rabbis than it ever has for Christians, a fact admitted by Rashi himself.

Rashi stated that the rabbis had a serious difficulty with Ezekiel since it contradicted what the Torah says in respect to the sacrificial and temple procedures. These supposed contradictions almost led to Ezekiel being completely rejected and removed from the Old Testament canon:  

And the prince shall make on that day, etc.. Our Rabbis (Hag. 13a) said that they sought to suppress the Book of Ezekiel for his words contradicted the words of the Torah. Indeed, Hananiah the son of Hezekiah the son of Gurion is remembered for good, for he sat in his attic and expounded on it. But because of our iniquities, what he expounded on these sacrifices why a bull is brought on the fourteenth day of Nissan has been lost to us. I say that perhaps he is dealing with the fourteenth of Nissan of the first Passover in which the fully erected House will be dedicated, and this bull will be brought in lieu of the calf born of cattle that Aaron offered up on the eighth of investiture (Lev. 9:2). [Scripture] tells us that if he will not have offered it up on the eighth day of investiture, he should offer it up on the fourteenth of Nissan in order that he should be initiated for the service before the Festival, for it is incumbent upon him [to bring] the sacrifices and the burnt offering of the appointed time, as is stated above (v. 17): “And the burnt offerings and the meal-offerings and the libations on the festivals… shall devolve on the prince, etc.” (Ibid., Ezek. 45:22: https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/16143/showrashi/true#v22; emphasis mine)

And here’s the Talmudic reference, which Rashi alluded to:

Rav Yehuda said: Indeed, that man is remembered for good, and Ḥananya ben Ḥizkiya was his name, because were it not for him, the book of Ezekiel would have been suppressed. Why did they wish to suppress it? Because they found that its words contradicted the words of Torah, as its later chapters contain many halakhot that appear not to accord with those of the Torah. What did he do? They brought up to him three hundred barrels of oil, for light and sustenance, and he sat in an upper chamber and expounded it, to reconcile its teachings with those of the Torah. (Chagigah: 13a - Talmud; emphasis mine)

Check this link for another rendering: Chagigah 13a.

The following lengthy rabbinic citation further highlights the dilemma, which Ezekiel 40-48 posed for the rabbis due to the discrepancies between that section and the Torah:

״וּבְיוֹם הַחֹדֶשׁ (תִּקַּח) פַּר בֶּן בָּקָר תָּמִים וְשִׁשָּׁה כְּבָשִׂים וָאַיִל תְּמִימִים יִהְיוּ״, ״פַּר״ – מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר? 

§ The Gemara cites a baraita with regard to the offerings sacrificed on the New Moon: The verse states: “And on the day of the new moon, a young bull without blemish; and six lambs, and a ram; they shall be without blemish” (Ezekiel 46:6) The baraita asks: Why does the verse state “a bull” when the verse in the Torah requires two bulls, as it is stated: “And on your New Moons you shall present a burnt offering to the Lord: Two young bulls, and one ram, seven lambs of the first year without blemish” (Numbers 28:11)? 

לְפִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בַּתּוֹרָה ״פָּרִים״, וּמִנַּיִן שֶׁאִם לֹא מָצָא שְׁנַיִם מֵבִיא אֶחָד? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״פַּר״. 

The baraita answers: Since it is stated in the Torah with regard to the offering of the New Moon: “Two young bulls,” one might think that it is not acceptable to bring fewer than two bulls under any circumstances. From where is it derived that if one did not find two bulls, he brings one? Therefore, the verse states: “A young bull,” in the singular, to teach that even if one has only one bull it should be sacrificed.

״שִׁשָּׁה כְּבָשִׂים״ – מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר? לְפִי שֶׁכָּתוּב בַּתּוֹרָה ״שִׁבְעָה״, וּמִנַּיִן שֶׁאִם לֹא מָצָא שִׁבְעָה יָבִיא שִׁשָּׁה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״שִׁשָּׁה״. 

The baraita discusses the continuation of the verse in Ezekiel, which mentions “six lambs.” Why does the verse state only six lambs when the verse in the Torah requires seven? The baraita answers: Since it is stated in the Torah with regard to the offering of the New Moon: “Seven lambs,” one might think that it is not acceptable to bring fewer than seven lambs under any circumstances. From where is it derived that if one did not find seven lambs, he should bring six? Therefore, the verse in Ezekiel states: “Six lambs,” to teach that in the absence of all seven lambs one should sacrifice six.

וּמִנַּיִן שֶׁאִם לֹא מָצָא שִׁשָּׁה, יָבִיא חֲמִשָּׁה, חֲמִשָּׁה יָבִיא אַרְבָּעָה, אַרְבָּעָה יָבִיא שְׁלֹשָׁה, שְׁלֹשָׁה יָבִיא שְׁנַיִם, וַאֲפִילּוּ אֶחָד? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״וְלַכְּבָשִׂים כַּאֲשֶׁר תַּשִּׂיג יָדוֹ״. 

And from where is it derived that if he did not find six lambs, he should bring five; and that if he did not find five lambs, he should bring four; and that if he did not find four lambs, he should bring three; and that if he did not find three lambs, he should bring two; and that if he could not find even two lambs, he should bring even one lamb? Therefore, the next verse in Ezekiel states: “And for the lambs as his means suffice” (Ezekiel 46:7), indicating that one should bring however many lambs one is able to bring.

וּמֵאַחַר דִּכְתִיב הָכִי, ״שִׁשָּׁה כְּבָשִׂים״ לְמָה לִי? דְּכַמָּה דְּאֶפְשָׁר לְהַדּוֹרֵי, מְהַדְּרִינַן. 

The Gemara asks: But once this is written, why do I need the previous verse to state “six lambs,” indicating that if one does not have seven lambs he should bring six? The Gemara answers: It teaches that although the minimal obligation is satisfied with even one lamb, nevertheless, to the degree that it is possible to seek more lambs, we seek them.

וּמִנַּיִן (לְאֵילִים שֶׁבְּתוֹרַת כֹּהֲנִים) שֶׁמְּעַכְּבִין זֶה אֶת זֶה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״יִהְיוּ״. 

The Gemara presents another halakha derived from these verses: And from where is it derived that failure to slaughter some of the required two bulls and seven sheep of the additional offering on Shavuot prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the others? The Gemara answers that the verse states: “They shall be” (Numbers 28:31); the term “they shall be” indicates that the offerings must be brought precisely as prescribed.

״כֹּה אָמַר ה׳ אֱלֹהִים בָּרִאשׁוֹן בְּאֶחָד לַחוֹדֶשׁ תִּקַּח פַּר בֶּן בָּקָר תָּמִים וְחִטֵּאתָ אֶת הַמִּקְדָּשׁ״. ״חַטָּאת״ – עוֹלָה הִיא! אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: פָּרָשָׁה זוֹ אֵלִיָּהוּ עָתִיד לְדוֹרְשָׁהּ. 

§ The Gemara discusses the meaning of another difficult verse in Ezekiel: “So says the Lord God: In the first month, on the first day of the month, you shall take a young bull without blemish; and you shall purify [veḥitteita] the Sanctuary” (Ezekiel 45:18). The Gemara asks: Since this verse speaks of the first of Nisan, which is a New Moon, why does it state “you shall purify [ḥitteita],” which indicates the sacrifice of a sin offering [ḥatat], when in fact each of the two bulls sacrificed on the New Moon is a burnt offering (see Numbers 28:11)? Rabbi Yoḥanan says: This passage is indeed difficult, and in the future Elijah the prophet will interpret it. 

רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: מִילּוּאִים הִקְרִיבוּ בִּימֵי עֶזְרָא, כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁהִקְרִיבוּ בִּימֵי מֹשֶׁה. 

Rav Ashi says: It is possible to explain that this verse is not referring to the additional offerings sacrificed on the New Moon but rather to the offerings of the inauguration that they sacrificed later in the days of Ezra, similar to the offerings that were sacrificed during the period of inauguration of the Tabernacle in the days of Moses. When the Temple service was restored in the Second Temple, the Jewish people observed eight days of inauguration, initiating the priests in the Temple service, from the twenty-third of Adar through the New Moon of Nisan. During these eight days, they offered a bull for a sin offering in addition to the offerings of the inauguration, just as had been done at the inauguration of the Tabernacle (see Leviticus 9:2).

תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: פָּרָשָׁה זוֹ אֵלִיָּהוּ עָתִיד לְדוֹרְשָׁהּ. אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: מִלּוּאִים הִקְרִיבוּ בִּימֵי עֶזְרָא, כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁהִקְרִיבוּ בִּימֵי מֹשֶׁה. אָמַר לוֹ: תָּנוּחַ דַּעְתְּךָ שֶׁהִנַּחְתָּ דַּעְתִּי. 

The Gemara comments that this discussion with regard to the interpretation of the verse in Ezekiel is also taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says: This passage is indeed difficult, but in the future Elijah the prophet will interpret it. Rabbi Yosei said to Rabbi Yehuda: This verse is referring to the offerings of the inauguration that they sacrificed later in the days of Ezra, similar to the offerings that were sacrificed during the period of inauguration in the days of Moses. Rabbi Yehuda said to Rabbi Yosei: May your mind be at ease, as you have put my mind at ease with this interpretation of the verse.

״וְכׇל נְבֵלָה וּטְרֵפָה מִן הָעוֹף וּמִן הַבְּהֵמָה לֹא יֹאכְלוּ הַכֹּהֲנִים״ – כֹּהֲנִים הוּא דְּלֹא יֹאכְלוּ, הָא יִשְׂרָאֵל אָכְלִי? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: פָּרָשָׁה זוֹ אֵלִיָּהוּ עָתִיד לְדוֹרְשָׁהּ. 

§ The Gemara discusses the meaning of another difficult verse in Ezekiel: “The priests shall not eat of anything that dies of itself, or is torn, whether it be fowl or beast” (Ezekiel 44:31). The Gemara asks: Is it only the priests who may not eat an unslaughtered animal carcass or an animal that was torn and now has a wound that will cause it to die within twelve months [tereifa], but an ordinary Jew may eat them? In fact, these items are prohibited for consumption by all. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: This passage is indeed difficult, but in the future Elijah the prophet will interpret it. 

רָבִינָא אָמַר: כֹּהֲנִים אִיצְטְרִיךְ לֵיהּ, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: הוֹאִיל וְאִשְׁתְּרִי מְלִיקָה לְגַבַּיְיהוּ, תִּשְׁתְּרֵי נָמֵי נְבֵילָה וּטְרֵפָה, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן. 

Ravina said that it was necessary for the verse to emphasize that these prohibitions apply to priests for the following reason: It might enter your mind to say that since pinching is permitted with regard to priests, therefore an animal carcass or a tereifa should also be permitted for them. A bird sin offering is killed by a priest pinching the nape of its neck. This is not a valid method of slaughter and would generally render a bird or animal an unslaughtered carcass, yet the priests are permitted to partake of the bird sin offering. Consequently, one might think that the prohibitions against eating an animal carcass or a tereifa in general do not apply to priests. Therefore, the verse teaches us that these prohibitions apply to priests as well.

״וְכֵן תַּעֲשֶׂה בְּשִׁבְעָה בַחֹדֶשׁ מֵאִישׁ שֹׁגֶה וּמִפֶּתִי וְכִפַּרְתֶּם אֶת הַבָּיִת״, ״שִׁבְעָה״? 

§ The Gemara discusses the meaning of another difficult verse in Ezekiel: “And so shall you do on the seventh of the month for every one that errs, and for him that is simple; so shall you make atonement for the house” (Ezekiel 45:20). The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the expression “on the seventh of the month”? There are no special offerings that are sacrificed on the seventh day of any month.

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אֵלּוּ שִׁבְעָה שְׁבָטִים שֶׁחָטְאוּ, וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין רוּבָּהּ שֶׁל קָהָל. 

Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The verse must be reinterpreted as referring to the bull for an unwitting communal sin, which is brought when the majority of the Jewish people have sinned as a result of following a mistaken ruling of the Sanhedrin. These seven alluded to in the verse are seven tribes who sinned. In such a case, a bull for an unwitting communal sin is brought even though the number of individuals who sinned are not the majority of the congregation. Because the majority of the individuals in the majority of the tribes have sinned, it is considered a sin of the congregation and not sins of many individuals.

״חֹדֶשׁ״ – אִם חִדְּשׁוּ וְאָמְרוּ חֵלֶב מוּתָּר, ״מֵאִישׁ שֹׁגֶה וּמִפֶּתִי״ – מְלַמֵּד שֶׁאֵין חַיָּיבִין אֶלָּא עַל הֶעְלֵם דָּבָר עִם שִׁגְגַת מַעֲשֶׂה. 

Similarly, the word “month [ḥodesh]” is to be interpreted as meaning that a bull for an unwitting communal sin is brought if the court innovated [ḥiddeshu] a new halakha contradicting the Torah, e.g., if they said that eating forbidden fat is permitted. The continuation of the verse: “For every one that errs, and for him that is simple,” teaches that the Sanhedrin is liable to sacrifice the bull for unwitting communal sin only for a matter that was hidden from the Sanhedrin, i.e., about which the Sanhedrin issued a mistaken ruling, and accompanied by unwitting action by the majority of the community, who relied on the mistaken ruling.

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: זָכוּר אוֹתוֹ הָאִישׁ לַטּוֹב, וַחֲנִינָא בֶּן חִזְקִיָּה שְׁמוֹ, שֶׁאִלְמָלֵא הוּא נִגְנַז סֵפֶר יְחֶזְקֵאל, שֶׁהָיוּ דְּבָרָיו סוֹתְרִין דִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה. מֶה עָשָׂה? הֶעֱלָה שְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת גַּרְבֵי שֶׁמֶן, וְיָשַׁב בַּעֲלִיָּיה וּדְרָשׁוֹ. 

The Gemara concludes the discussion of specific difficult verses in Ezekiel with the following general statement: Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: That man is remembered for good, and Ḥanina ben Ḥizkiyya is his name. As were it not for him, the book of Ezekiel would have been suppressed and not included in the biblical canon, because various details of its contents appear to contradict statements of the Torah. What did Ḥanina ben Ḥizkiyya do? He brought up to his upper story three hundred jugs [garbei] of oil for light so that he could study even at night, and he sat isolated in the upper story and did not move from there until he homiletically interpreted all of those verses in the book of Ezekiel that seemed to contradict verses in the Torah.

אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: אִם הָיוּ לָהֶם פָּרִים מְרוּבִּין [וְכוּ׳]. 

§ The mishna teaches that Rabbi Shimon says: If the Temple treasurers had sufficient funds for the numerous bulls that are required to be sacrificed on that day but they did not also have sufficient funds for the accompanying libations, they should rather bring one bull and its libations, and they should not sacrifice all of them without libations.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וְאֵיפָה לַפָּר וְאֵיפָה לָאַיִל יַעֲשֶׂה מִנְחָה וְלַכְּבָשִׂים כַּאֲשֶׁר תַּשִּׂיג יָדוֹ וְשֶׁמֶן הִין לָאֵיפָה״. אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: וְכִי מִדַּת פָּרִים וְאֵילִים אַחַת הִיא? 

Concerning this, the Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states: “And he shall prepare a meal offering, an ephah for the bull, and an ephah for the ram, and for the lambs as his means suffice, and a hin of oil to an ephah” (Ezekiel 46:7). Rabbi Shimon says: Is the measure of the meal offering accompanying bulls and rams the same, as stated in this verse that it is an ephah for each? In fact, this is not the halakha, as the meal offering accompanying a bull is three-tenths of an ephah of fine flour (see Numbers 15:9), whereas the meal offering accompanying a ram is only two-tenths of an ephah (see Numbers 15:6). (Menachot 45a | Sefaria Library; emphasis mine)

What a marked contrast with the Christian attitude towards Ezekiel, since the followers of the Lord Jesus did not have a problem with this book in spite of what it said about the prince offering sacrifices for himself. Unlike the rabbis, Christians did not feel threatened and saw no incompatibility with Ezekiel’s vision of a restored temple and sacrificial system, and the finality and perfection of the once and for all sacrificial death of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Further Reading

Judaism’s Dying & Rising Messiah

Discrepancies Between the Sacrifices in Ezekiel and the Torah