Thursday, December 7, 2006
Prince of the Covenant
Those present at the bible study last night will remember there was some discussion concerning who the prince of the covenant may be. My first inclination upon reading this verse was the "prince of the covenant" is the Ptolemaic King that made a covenant to become an ally of Antiochus should the Syrians help him regain his throne in Egypt. However, upon further reflection of the text, context rules out Ptolemy as the "prince of the covenant" and points toward it being the hight priest Onias III who is assasinated by Antiochus. Daniel 11:28 and 11:32 both use the term "covenant" in reference to Israel, so why would that be different for 11:22. Onias III would be called the "prince of the covenant" because as High Priest he is the head of the theocracy.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Verse of the Day
“I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Look! God’s dwelling place is now among the people, and he will dwell with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. ‘He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death’ or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.”” (Revelation 21: 2-4) 
(Read by Max McLean. Provided by The Listener's Audio Bible.)
Powered by BibleGateway.com
(Read by Max McLean. Provided by The Listener's Audio Bible.)Powered by BibleGateway.com
1 comment:
Now, if I am correct that another reason for saying that the "prince of the covenant" was the Ptolemaic King because of verse 23 and the description of the alliance. If that is so, then it would seem to me that I would agree with Andrew and Pastor Jack in that the High Priest was probably in reference to the "prince of the covenant." The reason is for all that Andrew said and also that it would seem odd to be that the "alliance" would be used instead of covenant. If this man is identified as the "Prince of the Covenant" (emphasis on Covenant), then why would the Biblical author use a completely different Hebrew word (which he does) in verse 23. That is all to say that I agree with Andrew.
Post a Comment