Seder 121: Numbers 25---Was Phinehas a Vigilante?

 At the end of their 40 years in the wilderness, the Israelites camped just east of the Jordan River "from Beth-jeshimoth as far as Abel-Shittim in the plains of Moab" (Num 33:49).  During their stay there, the nearby Moabites and Midianites, at the instigation of Balaam (Num 31:15-16), induced some Israelite men to commit adultery and idolatry with "the daughters of Moab" (Num 25:2).  A deadly plague ensued in which many Israelites died before Phinehas took decisive action, executing two of the offenders with a spear (verses 7-8).  

Phineas is strongly praised in the Bible for his actions (Num 25:10-13; Ps 106:28-31).  Still, some readers have accused him of being a vigilante, taking the law into his own hands.  A closer look at the biblical text refutes any such claim.  

First, we should remember that Phinehas was the son of Eleazar (Num 25:7), the current high priest after the death of Aaron (Num 20:22-29).  When Aaron was high priest, Eleazar had been a sort of chief of security.  According to Numbers 3:32, Eleazar "was to be chief over the chiefs of the Levites, and to have oversight of those who kept guard over the sanctuary."  Verse 38 adds that "any outsider who came near was to be put to death."  One reason that Eleazar had this job, rather than Aaron himself, was that the high priest was shielded from contact with death and corpse impurity as much as possible (Lev 21:11-12).  It was presumably for similar reasons that Eleazar supervised the preparation of the ashes of the red heifer while Aaron was high priest (Num 19:3-4).  

When Eleazar became high priest, his previous responsibilities, including the position of security chief would have been passed on to Phinehas.  Phinehas was the one in charge of keeping inappropriate visitors away from the tabernacle area, so dealing with Zimri and Cozbi was part of his job.  

Second, Phinehas acted in accordance with God's instructions for dealing with the idolaters.  God had directed Moses to organize some "chiefs" or "judges" to execute the idolaters (Num 25:4-5).  They were to be hung or impaled. As chief of security, Phinehas would have been one of those chiefs, and he dealt with the offenders in the manner in which God had specified.  

Phinehas, then, provides no precedent for the actions of would-be vigilantes.  He is, however, an example of carrying out one's responsibilities faithfully.  

Seder 117: On the Placement and Timing of Numbers 19

 In the religion of ancient Israel, one of the most serious kinds of ritual impurity resulted from contact with a human corpse.  While contact with a dead animal resulted in a minor impurity (Lev 11:31, 39) that only lasted "until the evening," contact with a human corpse was more serious.  During Israel's time in the wilderness, those who had had such contact were temporarily excluded from the camp (Num 5:2).  The high priest was to avoid it, even for the sake of close relatives (Lev 21:10-11).  It prevented a person from participating in Passover at the usual time (Num 9:6).  One who encountered a corpse during a Nazirite vow had to start the vow over again after a cleansing period of a week (Num 6:9-12).  

The ritual procedure for dealing with corpse impurity is laid out in Numbers 19.  It involves the application of a special mixture of living water and ashes of a red heifer on days 3 and 7 of a 7-day period.   

There seem to be allusions to this procedure in the Torah prior to Numbers 19.  The fact that a Nazirite's cleansing from corpse impurity requires a week (Num 6:9) is one.  When the Levites were set apart for service, the "water of purification" was sprinkled on them.  Presumably this is the mixture described in Numbers 19.  These allusions imply that the procedure in Numbers 19 was revealed to Moses at Mount Sinai and presumably used throughout Israel's time in the wilderness.   

The placement of the description of this procedure in Numbers 19, rather than in Leviticus 11-15 or earlier in Numbers, seems to be designed to communicate a message.  In the book of Numbers, chapter 19 is located between the story of the first generation of the Exodus (up through year 39 in the wilderness) and the story of the new generation that completes the journey to the Promised Land.  Many people died during those years in the wilderness, but the nation was cleansed and renewed in preparation for the completion of the journey.

Seder 82: Ezekiel 44---Envisioning a Holy Priesthood

 In the vision recorded in Ezekiel 40-48, Ezekiel is shown a picture of twelve tribes brought back to the Promised Land, with God dwelling in the midst of his people and true worship conducted at a new temple.  

The Aaronic priesthood serving at this temple is described in Ezekiel 44:15-31.  The holiness of these descendants of Zadok is emphasized, with specific mention that they follow instructions for priests laid out in the book of Leviticus.  They would

• carefully "distinguish between the holy and the common" (Lv 10:10; Eze 44:19).  
• not engage in pagan mourning rituals (Eze 44:20; Lv 10:6; 21:5, 10).  
• not drink on duty (Eze 44:21; Lv 10:9).
• observe marriage restrictions for priests, even for high priests  (Eze 44:22; Lv 21:7,14).
• faithfully carry out teaching responsibilities (Eze 44:23; Lv 10:11).
• make judicial rulings to settle disputes (Eze 44:24; Dt 17:7; 19:17; 21:5).
• follow priestly restrictions on mourning and deal appropriately with corpse impurity (Eze 44:25-26; Lev 21:1-3).  

One difference between the vision and previous practice was that these priests would serve strictly in white linen garments (verses 16-18).  Apparently the high priest would not wear the colorful royal garments described in Exodus 28, but would follow the restrictions used on the Day of Atonement (Lev 16).  Perhaps these details are intended to emphasize the humility of these priests.  

There are some differences between practices described in the Torah and those pictured in the vision.  The clothing in Ezekiel 44:16-18 is one of them.  Another is the burnt offering for a new moon---two bulls, one ram, and seven male lambs in Nu 28:11; and one bull, six sheep, and one ram in Ezekiel 46:6-7.  

Apparently the early rabbis puzzled over such differences.  The Babylonian Talmud (Shabbat 13b) mentions a sage named Hananiah ben Hezekiah who saved the book of Ezekiel's status in the canon by laboring to explain the differences between the practices in the vision and those laid out in the Pentateuch.  I personally am not troubled by these differences, which seem minor.  A new temple can come with some new customs.  

Seder 106: Numbers 6:1-21---the Nazirite Vow

 Numbers 6:1-21 describes the Nazirite vow, a way in which one could separate oneself to God at a high level of holiness for a specified period of time.  During the time of the vow, a Nazirite was to partake of no wine or grape products, was not to have a haircut, and was to have no contact with a corpse.  

These requirements have some parallels with the requirements for an Israelite high priest, who also was to have no contact with a corpse.(Lev 21:11) and was not to drink alcoholic beverages while on duty (Lev 10:9).  Both high priests and Nazirites had a special head covering.

One might undertake such a vow to express devotion or gratitude to God.  One might also promise to become a Nazirite if a certain prayer was answered.  

Any Israelite, male or female, could become a Nazirite.  For example, Queen Helene of Adiabene promised to do a 7-year vow if her son Izates, who had gone to war, returned safely.  He did, and see carried out the vow (m. Nazir 3:6; b Nazir 19b ). 

 Another female Nazirite mentioned in the Mishna and Talmud was Miriam of Palmyra (m Nazir 6:11; b Nazir 47a)

A third was Herod the Great's great-granddaughter Berenice.

The completion of a Nazirite vow was commemorated with a series of offerings (Num 6:13-21).  There has been much discussion among Jewish commentators about why one of them was a purification offering (v 16). One suggestion is that the purification offering was for the fact that the vow was now ending.  Another is that the purification offering is for all the good things that the Nazirite could have been enjoying during the time of the vow.  A better suggestion, I think, is that this purification offering is like those accompanying a priestly ordination.  The Nazirite would carry out a priestly act in placing his hair on the altar (Num 6:18), and he or she was making a transition to a new level in his or her relationship with God.

Since the offerings were expensive, it was considered to be a mitzvah to help a Nazirite finance them.  Paul once acted in this capacity (Acts 21:17-26) and also carried out a vow of his own (Acts 18:18).  These are some of the data supporting the assertion that Paul remained Torah observant after he was called as an apostle.

Seder 94: Lev 21-22---Special Rules for Priests

 The Israelites as a body comprised "a kingdom of priests and a holy nation" (Exod 19:6).  An increased "level of holiness" was required for those with priestly duties, and in particular for the high priest.  

Here we can see an analogy with sacred space.  The Israelite camp had a level of holiness, and the level increased as one approached God through the tabernacle courtyard and into the tent.  Only the high priest could enter the holy of holies, and then only once a year on the Day of Atonement.

In Lev 21:1-2 God instructed the priests, "No one shall make himself unclean for the dead among his people, except for his closest relatives."

The priest's wife is not mentioned specifically in the list of close relatives that follows, but it has always been assumed that the wife is included, since she is of "one flesh" with the priest and so is the closest relative of all to him.  

A later midrash interprets "among his people" in verse 1 to mean "when other people are around to do the job of burying the dead."  So if a priest were alone and happened upon a corpse, the priest could (and should) make sure that person received a proper burial.  

This issue comes into play in Jesus' famous parable of the good Samaritan (Luke 10:30-37).  In that story, a fictitious priest sees a man lying beside the road and has to decide whether to stop and check on the man.  The priest decided not to check on the man, presumably in order to obey Lev 21:1-4.  

The midrash above is a rabbinic interpretation of Lev 21 and probably would have been the interpretation of Pharisees in Jesus' time.  We do not know how other Jewish groups---e.g., Sadducees, Essenes---would have applied Lev 21 at that point.  Most people surely would have checked on the man.  

At any rate, Jesus set up the situation in the parable to highlight the importance of the love commandment of Lev 19:18 relative to other commandments.  His message was that we should "go, and do likewise" (Luke 10:37), following the example of the Samaritan.  

Kyle Kettering explained all of this and more in a sermon at Church of the Messiah on March 5, 2022.  Kyle is one of the few people in the world who has talked with flesh-and-blood Samaritans, and he mentioned that encounter again in his sermon.  

Seder 81: Lev 10:1-7---Nadab and Abihu

 Shortly after worship at the tabernacle began (presumably the same day), disaster struck.  Aaron's sons Nadab and Abihu "each took his censer and put fire in it and laid incense on it and offered unauthorized fire before the Lord, which he had not commanded them" (Lev 10:1).  Fire from God then quickly killed them (v 2).  

There are different possibilities for what the sin of Nadab and Abihu might have been.  The phrase "which I had not commanded them", the first-person version of the phrase "which he had not commanded them" in verse 1, occurs elsewhere in divine warnings against idolatry (Deut 18:20; Jer 7:31; 19:5), which raises the possibility that the "unauthorized fire" was connected with a pagan worship practice. 

Commentator Richard Hess finds further clues for this possibility in the names of the sons of Aaron.  Abihu means "he is my father," and Aaron was the one responsible for the golden calf (Exod 32:2-5).  Later the idolatrous Jeroboam would name his sons Nadab and Abijah (1 Kings 14).  

Hess also points out some extrabiblical evidence in a thirteenth-century B.C. clay tablet from Emar, an ancient Syrian city.  This tablet, designated number 369, describes a week-long ordination ritual for a priestess of the storm god Addu.  At the end of the week, a procession led the priestess to her new home in the temple of Addu.  Significantly, the procession included a torchbearer bringing fire to the temple.  Perhaps Nadab and Abihu were bringing pagan elements into the Israelite ceremony through their unauthorized fire.  

The Hebrew word for "unauthorized" in Lev 10:1 also appears in Exodus 30:9 in connection with incense offered at the tabernacle.  The same word appears in 2 Kings 19:24 in reference to the "foreign" waters of Egypt.  The incense that Nadab and Abihu offered could have differed from the prescribed type.  

There are two further clues in Leviticus.  In Lev 10:9, God specifies that priests not drink while on duty.  This suggests that Nadab and Abihu may have been operating under impaired judgment caused by the consumption of alcohol.  

Then in Lev 16:1-2, God gives the instruction that priests were not to enter the Most Holy Place in the tabernacle or temple, except for the high priest on the Day of Atonement.  The instruction is connected in the narrative to the deaths of Nadab and Abihu, suggesting that Nadab and Abihu may have entered the Most Holy Place with their censers.

Whatever the precise details of their infraction, their punishment sent the strong message that Israel needed to worship God on his terms.  In the initial stages of some phase of his plan, God may exercise severity to keep his program on track and guide a community in the right direction.  The punishments given to Achan (Joshua 7) and to Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5) are further examples of this pattern.

Aaron, of course, would have been shocked by what happened.  Lev 10:3 says that Aaron "held his peace," a response for which he usually is viewed favorably.  Aaron and his remaining sons were forbidden from visibly mourning in this instance.  For a high priest, mourning any death was out of the question (Lev 21:10-12).  An ordinary priest normally could mourn for a close relative (Lev 21:1-3), but that was not allowed in this case.  Commentator Gordon Wenham observes that it would have been  detrimental to the spiritual health of the whole community if the family were to imply in any way that they condoned the sins of Nadab and Abihu or disagreed with God's judgment.