Numbers Pincus

Pinchas
Numbers 25:10−30:1

I. Summary

A. Pinchas, Aaron’s grandson and son of Eleazar (incumbent high priest), is rewarded for killing the Israelite man (Zimri) and the Midianite woman (Cozbi). Pinchas’ act of passion for God stops the plague that God imposed on the Israelites for their immoral and idolatrous practices with women from Moab (previous parahsa). Pinchas is rewarded with the hereditary and permanent priesthood in Israel. (Num 25:10-15)

B. At God’s request, Israel takes vengeance on and defeats the Midianites for their prior immoral behavior with Israelites. (Num 25:16-18)

C. A second military census (of over 20 year old males able to bear arms) is taken the results of which are used to 1) prepare for battle with Midianites, 2) allot land in Canaan and 3) confirm a generational shift from the time of the first census (in B’midbar) prior to 40-year wandering. Descendants within each tribe are listed. Land is to be apportioned to all Israelites (except the Levites who receive no land) according to the number of family members who left Egypt rather than the number of family members who will enter it. (Num 26:1–65)

D. The five daughters of Zelophehad force a change in the laws of property inheritance enabling them to inherit the land designated for their father's descendants. The other rules of apportionment of the Promised Land are set out. (Num 27:1–11)

E. God tells Moses to view Canaan (as close as Moses is going to get) after which he will die, again citing Moses’ transgression “by means of water” (publicly hitting rock rather than speaking to rock to get water … see Num 20:11-13). God chooses Joshua to be Moses’ successor. (Num 27:12–23)

F. The sacrificial ritual for all festival occasions is described in detail. (Num 28:1–29:39)

II. Commentary (Plaut, various websites, Jewish Study Bible, Hevreh discussions)

A. Pinchas’ motivation for killing - Pinchas is rewarded not for his act of murder, but for stopping the plague and saving the Israelites. Pinchas’ impulsive deed was not merely a kind of battlefield execution, but reflected his apprehension that the demands of God needed human realization and required a memorable and dramatic example against permissiveness in the religious realm.

B. Zealotry to jealousy to anger - How does one characterize Pinchas’ killing of a sinning Israelite man and Midianite woman? Is Pinchas a zealot? What is zealotry? Translations often use the word jealous instead of zealous. Today, the word zealous implies eagerness and ardor, yet the biblical figures exhibited more than jealousy. Biblical jealousy goes deeper … to anger. Pinchas’ act of zealotry is disturbingly similar to murderous acts of today’s suicide bombers acting out of religious fervor. What are distinguishing and overlapping characteristics of zealotry v. jealously v. anger? Does each of said three emotions have a positive side? Do all rational emotions have positive sides?

C. Pinchas’ reward – While God does say Pinchas’ act was the reason God stopped the plague, was Pinchas’ (reflexive rather than premeditated) act of murderous passion a truly heroic act worthy of reward he received (hereditary and permanent priesthood in Israel)? Arguably, Pinchas was rewarded, in part, to prevent Pinchas from committing an overly extreme act out of zealousness, i.e. such acts would be clearly inappropriate for a member of the priestly class. Reward also legitimizes transfer of priestly role to Pinchas (arguably Pinchas, as Aaron’s grandson, would have received hereditary priestly role anyway; however, Rashi’s explanation is that hereditary priestly function applied only to people born after hereditary priestly function was given to Aaron and Pinchas was already alive at such time so was not in line to inherit priestly function)

D. Pinchas is not a leader - He is the quintessential follower and, as such, a very dangerous person. God wants something done; Pinchas goes and does it, no questions asked—he just does it. The text tells us that God is very angry at the Israelites' backsliding into idolatry, but is Pinchas' reflexive behavior the only way to act? Abraham convinces God to give Sodom and Gomorrah a chance; Moses, after the incident of the Golden Calf, deflects God's anger through argument. But Pinchas, the follower, murders. Num 27:16-17 says "appoint someone . . . so that the Eternal’s community may not be like sheep that have no shepherd". Ethical behavior is not just a leader's responsibility. A leader's community has equal responsibility in determining the road they all walk. The real leader lives in the conscience of each of us.

E. Intermarriage – Arguably, Pinchas episode addresses problem of intermarriage (slaying of Israelite and Midianite woman). Commentators have said that Pinchas was part Midianite (his maternal grandfather being Yitro, Moses father-in-law) so Pinchas episode is appropriate device for addressing intermarriage.

F. Pinchas as agent of God – Up to now, God carried out God’s mandates v. Pinchas now acting on behalf of God (murder by Pincus stops God’s plague against Israelites). Suggests that Israelites are evolved enough as they are about to enter Promised Land to carry out God’s words.

G. Moses’ heroic quality - Moses assumes a profoundly human quality and seems more deeply heroic. No longer appearing invincible, Moses is forced to face failure, frustration, and ultimately death. He lives to see his dreams not quite shattered but not quite realized, either. It is not his almost superhuman deeds that make Moses our hero. Rather, it is the supreme wisdom and courage with which Moses confronts his own humanity that endows him with a truly heroic stature.

H. Necessity for a new type of leadership - Moses spoke of the people as continuing to need a shepherd; however, God knew that more (what?) was required for the people to enter the Promised Land. Thus, although Joshua would be Moses’ successor, he would not have the same tasks that Moses had been given. New leadership was necessary to accomplish a new objective. Nonetheless, it needed to be leadership that was also inspired by faith and concern.

I. Getting into war v. getting out of war - Together, Moses and God articulate that the next leader will "go out before them [the people] and come in before them, and . . . shall take them out and bring them in . . ."(Numbers 27:17). It is the second half of Moses' concern that is striking. His successor is supposed to lead his men into war and bring them back out of war. Going to war may be something a leader feels is justified and necessary. However, he or she also is responsible for thinking about how to get the people out of war. For this, too, the leader is duty-bound. Think Iraq!

J. Joshua replacing Moses – Once Moses was denied entry to Promised Land, Moses had to be replaced. But why Joshua? Offered rationale (“an inspired individual” … Num 27:18) doesn’t seem like reason enough. Perhaps Joshua being one of only two optimistic scouts (with Caleb) was part of reason but then why was Joshua chosen over Caleb to replace Moses? Both demonstrated faith in God. Even though it was God who appointed Joshua, was it the fact that the people accepted him that made him their true leader?

K. Significance of Zelophehad's daughters – 1. Stark contrast with other sibling relationships - Unlike the dysfunctional sibling relationships found in Genesis (Cain and Abel, Isaac and Ishmael, Jacob and Esau, Rachel and Leah, and Joseph and his brothers), Zelophehad's daughters worked together in harmony rather than through deception or rancor to achieve their personal goals. 2. Just protest - They exemplify the politics of just protest, i.e. claiming rights for themselves and for others disenfranchised by the system. 2. Bottom-up source of biblical law - Shows that a biblical law can emerge not only from the top (from God to humankind), but also when persons identify a human need and initiate a process to address it. 3. Acts have consequences - Demonstrates that standing up against personal injustice, and doing so in a public and effective way, has consequences that extend beyond the personal.

L. Significance of including details on sacrificial ritual - The insertion of the details for sacrificial ritual implies that Joshua, unlike Moses, was to assume only military and civil control, while religious practices were to be removed from his authority.

III. Lessons for today

A. Spirituality more important than physicality - Pinchas’s murderous act was consistent with God’s word so reinforced priority of maintaining God’s word, i.e. survival of spirituality more important than survival of physical life.

B. Be aggressive to resolve conflicts in order to attain peace - Pinchas acted very strongly and confrontationally against those who were leading the Jewish people into self-destructive behavior. Pinchas' confrontational behavior was actually an act of peace that staved off a disaster.

C. Care about others - Being responsible and caring means not only caring about what will be best for ourselves, but also what will be best for the others. For example, when God told Moses he would soon die, Moses' main concern wasn't about himself, but rather that the people should have a good and worthy leader to take over for him (Num 27:17).

D. Question authority to remedy unfairness - Although we should respect authority, that doesn't mean we can't question authority if we feel something is unfair. Evidenced by Zelophehad's daughters.

E. Flexibility as an attribute of leadership – In carefully considering arguments made by Zelophehad's daughters and taking the matter up with God, Moses showed a willingness to change his mind in order to cure an inequity.




(revised 7/12/09)