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 struck 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 atoned 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 described 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 this root that is used for “t’fila” – prayer. In fact, as we will find out, Pinchas’ action was multifaceted. In the second half of this article, his atoning act, its judicial aspects, and its parallelism with 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, the
Egyptian wife of Hadad the Edomite (1 Kings 11:19, 20). But even more
intriguing is the name of the Midianite princess Cozbi, which is
made up of the letters kaf, zayin, bet, yod. The first three of these, that is
c.z.b, constitute the root for the word “cazav” (or, phonetically,
“kazav”), which means to “lie, deceive, lying, deception”.
Last week we read in Bamidbar 23:19: “Elohim is not a man that He should
lie...” The verb rendered there as “lie” is “(vay)cha’zev”, which refers
particularly to “being unfaithful or untrue to one’s commitment or promise”. In
a land thirsty for water, as Yisrael is, riverbeds hold a promise of being
filled during the winter. However, in the dry season, such riverbeds become
waterless. Hence a stream of water that dries up after the rainy season
may be used as imagery for that which lets one down: “You surely are to me like
deceitful – ach’zav - waters which cannot be trusted”, complains Yirmiyahu to
his Creator in a moment of dark despair (Jer. 15:18). Cozbi, too, was nothing
but a bait of deception and enticement to the people of Yisrael (cf. Prov. 5),
and especially to leaders like Zimri. Walking in the paths of temptation, away
from He Who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, leads not only to
disappointment but far worse… and in the case before us, to destruction and
death, which was experienced by 24,000 souls in Yisrael’s camp (ref. Num.
25:9).
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 of the word “medina” –
province. However, in 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”.
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 (root k.n.a.
kof, noon, alef), originating in the “color produced in the face by deep
emotion” [1]. It is especially used in situations pertaining to marriage
relationships, and as “God is depicted as Israel’s husband; he is [therefore] a
jealous God… Phinehas [too] played the faithful lover by killing a man and his
foreign wife, and thus stayed the wrath of divine jealousy”. [2] The other word
that occurs five times in verses 14-18 is “smite or smitten”
and “strike” (in other translations “slay and slain”). In all these
instances, the verb “nako” (n.k.h, noon, kaf, hey) is used in a variety
of conjugations. N.k.h (or its derivation “hakot”) is a very common root
and may be used in many different ways, describing fall and defeat, punishment,
being beaten, smitten, or hurt for a variety of reasons. In our case, it
concerns the death penalty.
Because/of/the/emphatic/repetition/of/“jealousy/zealousness”
- kano - just before the reiteration of “nako” (smite),
it would appear that our text is underscoring a situation in which YHVH’s
“jealousy” has been provoked, resulting in a “smiting unto death”. Clearly, a
cause-and-effect ‘word picture’ is being conveyed here by a (subtle) play on
words.
Chapter 26 is devoted to the census of the leaders of the
tribes and of all those who were twenty years old and above; that is, those
eligible for army service. It is according to the relative number that the
land of Yisrael is to be apportioned to them: “To the many you shall increase
their inheritance, and to the few, you shall diminish their inheritance”
(v. 54, emphases added). On the other hand, in verse 62, we read that the
census of the Levites applied to “all males from a month old and upward”, but
it goes on to say that “they were not counted among the sons of
Israel, because there was no inheritance given them among the
sons of Israel” (emphasis added). “Inheritance” here (in both cases) is
“nachala”, the root of n.ch.l (noon, chet, lamed) is also a stream
(“nachal”), and therefore connotes a downward flow, meaning “a permanent
possession inherited by succession” (the Levites were told by YHVH
that He was their portion – “nachala,” Num. 18:20). A
different conjugation transforms n.ch.l to “manchil”, which is “to cause to
possess” such as is seen in Dvarim (Deuteronomy) 32:8: “When the Most High gave
– “hinchil” - each nation its heritage, when he set apart the sons of Adam, he
set the bounds of the people according to the number of the people
of Israel”. And just as the Land of Yisrael was divvied out according to
the size of each household, so was the rest of the world divided up by YHVH,
who knew that His people would be scattered among the nations, according to the
‘quota’ of Israelites in their midst.
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 on how to ordain his successor, which the latter follows implicitly; “as
YHVH commanded” (v. 23), in spite of what was no doubt a grave disappointment
for 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 that were not able to satisfy.
In Parashat Balak (and Pinchas), we encounter the Israelites’
harlotry and idolatry instigated by the daughters of Moab and Midian
(ref. 25:1-6). This act included sacrifices, with the worshippers prostrating
before? idols,?as?well?as?sexual?immorality./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. Or alternately, commanding the leader to hang the ones who
committed the sin). YHVH held all the leaders responsible for these abominable
acts, and His response was to have them hanged (or have them hang the sinners)
in broad daylight and in view of all of Yisrael in order to appease His
righteous indignation.
Moshe, however, did not fully comply with this very specific
order. 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 last week and above, dared to defy and blatantly rebel against YHVH by
fornicating in the sight of all the congregation of Israel with a Midianite
princess in front of the Mishkan. It was only after the two offenders were
pierced to death that the plague (which took a substantial toll on the people –
24,000 persons died) came to a halt.
As we noted above, it was said about Pinchas that, in his
jealousy 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 consequence of being hanged in
broad daylight (or of hanging the offenders themselves). 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 wrongdoers in order 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 in My zeal”.
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 compound (see
John 2:17), while the disciples associated His action with T’hilim (Psalms)
69:9, where it is written: “…zeal for Your house has eaten me up…”
Above, we referred to the recurrence of the verb n.k.h (smite,
smitten, strike, stricken) at the beginning of the Parasha, which in
Yisha’ya’hu (Isaiah) 53:4 is used in adverb form, 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 struck/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 (or have them
execute the sinners by that method) 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 by Yeshua, who redeemed us
from the curse of sin and of betraying Elohim, by hanging on a tree (ref. Gal.
3:13). 1st Peter 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 regard 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 an everlasting
priesthood (ref. Numbers 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 eternal. 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 6:2; 7:24).
Bamidbar (Numbers) chapter 25 presents YHVH’s legal
requirements for atonement in a most detailed and graphic way, both in what
preceded Pinchas’ interposing act and afterward. 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 The New Brown, Driver, Briggs, Gesenius Lexicon,
Francis Brown Hendrickson.
Publishers, Peabody, Mass. 1979.
2 Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, Vol. 2,
ed. R. Laird Harris, Moody
Press, Chicago, 1980
No comments:
Post a Comment