The issue we
encounter at the beginning of Parashat Pinchas has already been introduced to
us at the end of last week’s Parashat Balak. Pinchas, A’haron’s grandson who is
his son’s El’azar’s firstborn, observed the sinful act committed by an
Israelite, a leader of the tribe of Shim’on (Simeon) with a Midianite woman,
and slew both of them. He thus “made atonement” (25:13) for the sons of Yisrael
and brought to an end the plague that stuck them. The word used here for “made
atonement” is none other than “(vay)cha’per,” of the root k.f.r,
which we know as “kippur,” or “covering.” Pinchas’ action, along with the penalty paid for
by the two sinners, had propitiated for Yisrael’s iniquity of “clinging to
Ba’al Pe’or” (ref. 25:3). T’hilim (Psalms) 106 also refers to this episode: “They
also were joined to Baal-Peor, and ate the sacrifices of the dead; and provoked
Him with their deeds; and a plague broke out among them. Then Phinehas stood and
intervened, and the plague was stayed” (vs
28-30). In this latter
reference Pinchas’ act is
describes as – (vay)fa’lel (p/f.l.l, pey/fey, lamed, lamed) – which is interposing,
intervening, mediating, as well as judging and pleading.
It is from this root that the word
“t’fila,” prayer, originates. I fact, as we will find out, Pinchas’ action was
multi-facetted. In the second half of
this article, His atoning act and its judicial aspects and parallelism to
Yeshua’s, will be elaborated on.
The two persons involved in the said episode
were, Zimri the son of Salu, one of the leaders of the tribe of Shim’on, and
Cozbi a Midianite woman, who, likewise was a daughter of a “head of the people of a father's house in Midian” (25:15).
Leading Yisrael astray definitely ranked high on the list of priorities of the
Mo’av-Midian coalition. The protagonists’ names in this Parasha, are also of
interest. Thus, Pinchas appears to be an Egyptian name, having typical
characteristics such as the name of the town of Tach’pan ’ches
(Jeremiah 44:1) and that of Tach’peh’nis
As noted
above, Cozbi was a Midianite. Midian was
a son of Avraham by his wife K’turah (see Gen. 25:2). The name stems from the
verb “din” (dalet, yod, noon), meaning primarily to “judge or mete
justice,” referring to all aspects of government. It is the root for the
word “medina” – province. However, this
particular form – “Midian” – may also be related to “mah’don,” which
albeit of the same root (as “judgment”) means “strife or contention”
(e.g. Prov. 15:18; Jer. 15:10; Hab. 1:3 etc.). Thus, far from being a people of
judgment (that is of justice and righteousness), the Midianites’ affairs were
handled by resorting to magic and witchcraft and all forms of deception, as was
so evident in the character of Bil’am. The
fact that they were not wholly unaware of the Elohim of Yisrael and of His ways
(as illustrated by Yitro, Moshe’s father-in-law and even by Bil’am), only made
the “din” (‘judgment’) pronounced upon them by Yisrael’s Elohim more severe. Hence,
YHVH says to Moshe: "Harass the Midianites, and attack them; for they harassed you with their schemes by
which they seduced you in the matter of Peor and in the matter of Cozbi, the
daughter of a leader of Midian, their sister, who was killed in the day of the
plague because of Peor” ( Num. 25:17-18).
Highlighted
in this passage is the cunning posture and frame of mind of the Midianites,
illustrated so typically by Cozbi. The order from on High here is “to harass
and attack” the Midianites, since they “harassed you.” “harassing” in
this case is “tza’ror” (tz.r.r - tzadi, resh, resh), meaning, “showing
hostility,” while “tzorer” is an “enemy or adversary.” In Parashat Balak, we heard Bil’am say of Yisrael:
“he shall eat up the nations that are his foes – tza’rav” (Num.
24:8 italics added). In Bamidbar (Numbers) 33:55 a condition will be placed
before Yisrael: “But if you do not drive out the inhabitants
of the land from before you, then it shall be that those whom you let remain shall be irritants in your eyes and thorns in your sides, and they shall
harass– (ve)tza’ra’ru - you in the land where you dwell”.
Haman, the Jews’ cruel adversary, was named in Esther 3:10; 8:1, “tzorer
ha-Yehudim,” the “foe of the Jews.” Haman the Agagite was a descendent of the
royal house of Amalek, about whom it was said, “Amalek threatened the body of
the people [of Yisrael], whilst Midian threatened its soul.” [1]
The opening section of the Parasha presents two words
that are used several times within a few verses. The first one is repeated four
times in 25:11-13, and it is “jealous,” “zealous,” or “jealousy.” The root of “jealousy/zealousness” is kano Israel
However,/because/of/the/emphatic/repetition/of/“jealousy/
zealousness” - kano
Chapter 26 is devoted to the census of the leaders of
the tribes and of all those who were twenty-year old and above; that is, those eligible
for army service. It is according to
their relative number that the land
of Yisrael Israel
When YHVH reminds
Moshe that his day of departure is close at hand, the latter expresses his
concern regarding the future: “Let YHVH, the Elohim of the spirits of all
flesh, appoint a man over the congregation who may go out before
them, and who may go in before them, and who may lead them out, and who may
bring them in, so that the congregation of YHVH may not be as sheep to whom
there is no shepherd” (27:16, 17 italics added). Evidently, Moshe understands
the integrated composition of man, being both flesh and spirit while at the
same time also recognizing that YHVH knows his creatures through and through.
In describing the need for a leader, Moshe highlights “going out before (the
people)… going in before (them)… leading out… and bringing in…” Is Moshe subtly
making reference to the possible fate of the next leader, lest it be similar to
his own (that is, staying behind and not entering the land with the rest of the
people)? Whether that is the case or
not, Moshe displays no bitterness when told to “take Joshua, a man in whom is
the spirit” (v. 18), echoing the “Elohim of the spirits” mentioned in verse 16
above. YHVH instructs Moshe how to ordain his successor, which Moshe follows
implicitly; “as YHVH commanded” (v. 23), in spite of what was no doubt a grave
disappointment to him. However, since Moshe had not been deceived or embittered,
his disappointment is not like the description found in Ee’yov (Job) 41:9:
“Behold, your expectation is false [nich’zeva, of the root k.z.v
examined above].” Neither/was Moshe’s experience
like that of the faithless ones from among the people of Yisrael who sought
gratification in the wrong places and from that which was not able to satisfy.
In Parashat Balak (and Pinchas)
we encounter the Israelites’ harlotry and idolatry instigated by the daughters
of Moab Israel
Moshe, however, did not obey this very
specific order accurately. Instead, He spoke to the nation’s judges, telling them
to kill (not specifying how): “each man his men who were joined to Baal of Peor"
(25:5). This time Moshe’s delegation of
power to his subordinates was not according to YHVH’s judicial order. That
being the case, the plague continued and additionally a leader from the tribe
of Shim’on, as we noted, dared to defy and blatantly rebel against YHVH by
fornicating in the sight of all the congregation of Israel
As we noted above, it was said about Pinchas
that, in his jealousness and zeal for YHVH he atoned for the Sons of YIsrael,
resulting in a covenant of peace, as well as in a covenant of an everlasting
priesthood for him and for his seed (25:12, 13). As we have already seen, Psalm
106:30-31 adds a couple more terms regarding the scene at hand: “Then Phinehas
stood up and intervened/ mediated/interjected, and the plague was
stopped. And that was accounted to him
for righteousness to all generations forevermore” (italics added).
Thus, in order to appease YHVH, according to
His specifications, in the case of this most horrendous act of sin and
transgression there were several requirements and legalities. First, the
leaders had to be held accountable with the consequential requirement of being
hung in broad daylight. When that order was not followed implicitly, and
another brazen act of defilement was performed in public, it took the piercing
to death of the offenders to restore righteousness, interpose, atone, and
propitiate for all YIsrael, who without that would have all perished (by the
plague).
Moreover, in the act of the fornication of
the masses, as well as the single act of the Simeonite leader Zimri, there was
not only a clinging/joining/adhering to the idol of Baal Peor, but also a
joining and becoming one with the enticing harlots. Thus, Yisrael as YHVH’s
bride was joined to another, becoming one with Baal and its priestesses. Hence
the Jealous Husband (see Numbers 5:11-31) had every right to activate the “law
of jealousy” against His bride. Pinchas, however, appeased that too, and so we
read in Bamidbar 25:11 that he “has turned back My wrath from the
children of Israel , because
he was zealous with My zeal among them, so that I did not consume the children
of Israel
The above facts and especially the responses
to the sin so flagrantly displayed, help shed light on the judicial aspects of
Yeshua’s atoning act on His execution stake. YHVH, as the jealous
husband, had to see to it that His bride’s inherent sinful condition by which
she had been enticed to betray Him would be propitiated and atoned for. In the
Baal Peor incident, it was also YHVH’s household that was defiled. Similarly, Yeshua
responded to the peddling that took place in the Temple
Above we referred to the reoccurrence of the
verb n.k.h (smite, smitten, strike, stricken) at the beginning of the Parasha, which
in Yisha’ya’hu (Isaiah) 53: in adverb form, is used to portray the One who was
“smitten by Elohim” (mu’keh Elohim). Both Matthew (27:30) and Mark (15:19) give
an account of how Yeshua was stuck/beaten/smitten on His head before being hung
on the tree.
YHVH’s desired form of reckoning with the
leaders of Yisrael, who had failed miserably, was to have them executed by
hanging, so that the curse could be removed from the rest of the people, as it
is written: “He who is hanged is accursed of Elohim” (Deuteronomy 21:23). This was fulfilled in
Yeshua, who redeemed us from the curse of sin and of betraying Eloim, by
hanging on a tree (ref. Gal. 3:13). 1Peter 2:24 says: “Who Himself bore our sins in His own body on
the tree…” When the hanging did not take
place in the Numbers 25 episode, and when further offense was committed, as we
saw, Pinchas resorted to piercing the offenders with a javelin. Yeshua too was
pierced, in that case, during His crucifixion (ref. John 19:34). In regards to the
piercing, John adds, quoting Zechariah 12:10: "They shall look on Him whom
they pierced" (John 19:37).
“…Elohim set forth as a propitiation by
His [Yeshua’s] blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because
in His forbearance Elohim had passed over the sins that were previously
committed…” (Romans 3:25). With
the requirement of blood in order to propitiate for the sins committed by the
Israelites, for “without shedding of blood there is no remission” (Hebrews
9:22), Pinchas’ action fulfilled YHVH’s righteousness, or at least foreshadowed
the ultimate act of righteousness that was to come.
Pinchas’ reward was a covenant of peace, and
of everlasting priesthood (ref. Number 25:12,13). Later on, Yisrael too would
be receiving the promise of a “covenant of peace” (Is. 54:10, Ez. 34:25,
37:26). Moreover, this covenant of peace was to be an everlasting one. It is no
wonder, therefore, that the agent of propitiation, interposing and atoning
(namely Pinchas) was also the recipient of this covenant. The greater covenant
of peace comes into effect by the Prince of Peace (ref. Is. 9:6), who has
promised, over and again, peace to His followers, has brought the Gospel of
peace (ref. Eph. 2:17), and made peace through His blood (ref. Col. 1:20). And
as to the everlasting priesthood… that same “agent” of righteousness was
eligible for this kind of priesthood, as it says about Him: “…where the
forerunner has entered for us, even
Yeshua, having become High Priest forever according to the order of
Melchizedek… But He, because He continues forever, has an unchangeable
priesthood” (Hebrews 6:20 7:24).
Bamidbar (Numbers) 25, therefore, presents
YHVH’s legal requirements for atonement in a most detailed and graphic way,
both in what preceded Pinchas’ interposing act, and afterwards. Hence, when
we gaze from this vantage point in Bamidbar further into the historical account,
we see that Yeshua’s action and position met every requirement to the full and complete
satisfaction of His Father.
[1] New Studies in Bamidbar, Nechama Leibowitz, trans.
Aryeh Newman. Eliner
Library, Department for Torah Education and
Culture in the Diaspora. Hemed
Books Inc., Brooklyn , N.Y.
2 The New Brown,
Driver, Briggs, Gesenius Lexicon, Francis Brown Hendrickson.
Publishers, Peabody ,
Mass.
3 Theological Wordbook
of the Old Testament, Vol. 2, ed. R. Laird Harris, Moody
Press, Chicago
No comments:
Post a Comment