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
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
Because/of/the/emphatic/repetition/of/ “jealousy/zealousness” -
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, see Deut. 31:2)? 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
It/is/no/wonder,therefore/that/scripture/terms/it?clinging-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
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
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
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
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.
[1] New Studies in Bamidbar, Nechama Leibowitz, trans. Aryeh Newman. Eliner
Library, Department for Torah Education and
Culture in the Diaspora. Hemed
Books Inc.,
2 The New Brown, Driver, Briggs, Gesenius Lexicon, Francis Brown Hendrickson.
Publishers,
3 Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, Vol. 2, ed. R. Laird Harris, Moody
Press,
