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. In 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
In chapter 27 of our Parasha, we
meet Tzlofchad’s daughters who demand their possession saying: “Our father died
in the wilderness… and had no son. Why is our father's name taken away from the
midst of his family because there is no son to him? Give us an inheritance
among our father's brothers” (vs. 3, 4 emphasis added). Inheritance in this case
is “achuza”, of the verb achoz (root a.ch.z. alef, chet, zayin), meaning
to “grasp or hold” and hence to “possess and possession”.
The stronger word for “possession”, used here by these daughters certainly
underscores their claim.
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 typically sought
gratification in the wrong places and from sources which were not able to
satisfy.
In Parashat
Balak (and Pinchas) we encounter the Israelites’ harlotry and idolatry
instigated by the daughters of Moab
adhering/sticking
to Baal Pe’or” (v. 3), who was the local deity. YHVH’s anger burned against Yisrael,
and so a little later a plague broke out among them (25:8-9). YHVH addressed
Moshe in no uncertain terms, commanding him to “take all the leaders of the
people and hang them before YHVH, out in the sun, that the fierce anger
of YHVH may turn away from Israel” (25:4 literal translation, emphasis added).
YHVH held all the leaders responsible for these abominable acts, and His
response was to have them hung in broad daylight and in view of all 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 few 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 act 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) 53:4 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 Elohim,
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
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 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 (Yeshua) 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 it is clear that Yeshua’s action and position met
every requirement to the full and complete satisfaction of His Father.
Israel
[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
Hebrew
Tools for Everyday Use
This
week Bamidbar chapter 26 will provide us with words that are common in Modern
Hebrew and are used frequently in the military. This chapter deals with a
census for the purpose of enlisting all those over twenty years of age into the
army. As then so now, “tzava” is the word we use for “army” or “military”. The
census, of course, required “numbering”, which in this chapter employs the root
p.k.d – pey, kof, dalet. In modern
speech “le’faked” is “to command” and “pkuda” is “a command”, while “commander”
is “me’fa’ked”. Remember that in Hebrew the sound “p” (pey) and “f” (fey) are
designated by the same letter.
Tz’vah
Hagana Le’Yisrael (literally, the army of defense for Israel
There
are commanders in the army
Ba’tza’va
yesh me’fakdim (literally, in the army there commanders – Hebrew has no “is” or
“are”)
In
the army there are also female commanders
Ba’tza’va
yesh gam me’fakdot (literally, in the army there also female commanders)
The
commander gave a command
Ha’me’faked
na’tan pkudah
