Pinchas - What to Make of his Zeal

As religious zealotry and violence in the name of God gain influence on contemporary events, we find an opportunity to consider this approach to religious life in the two Torah portions that we read on these two Shabbatot, the parshiot of Balaq and Pinchas. The story that overlaps these two parshiot raises important questions on the nature of zealotry in a system that makes demands on one’s love of God.

The story, in brief, goes as follows: Balaq, king of Moab, sends Balaam on a mission to lay a curse upon Israel, a mission that proves unsuccessful. The Moabites fear Israel because of recent successes in battles against neighboring Amorite kingdoms. Instead of cursing Israel, Balaam is forced by God to bless the people. What could not be achieved by magic might otherwise be achieved by lust and seduction. And so, Moabite women set out to seduce the men of Israel who act on their lust, leading them to participate in the Ba’al cult of the Moabites, a cult that may have included ritual prostitution. A plague breaks out among the Israelites, and God tells Moses that in order to assuage his anger, the ringleaders are to be rounded up and impaled. Apparently, before this happens, a prominent Israelite man and a notable Moabite woman are seen in the Israelite encampment, flaunting their relationship. Incensed by the scene, Pinchas, the grandson of Aaron, takes a spear, enters the tent, and catching them in the act, he thrusts his spear through both of them at once. Numbers 25:11-12 records God’s reaction to this act:

פִּינְחָס בֶּן־אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן־אַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֵן הֵשִׁיב אֶת־חֲמָתִי מֵעַל בְּנֵי־יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּקַנְאוֹ אֶת־קִנְאָתִי בְּתוֹכָם וְלֹא־כִלִּיתִי אֶת־בְּנֵי־יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּקִנְאָתִי: לָכֵן אֱמֹר הִנְנִי נֹתֵן לוֹ אֶת־בְּרִיתִי שָׁלוֹם: וְהָיְתָה לולּוֹ וּלְזַרְעווֹ אַחֲרָיו בְּרִית כְּהֻנַּת עוֹלָם תַּחַת אֲשֶׁר קִנֵּא לֵאלֹהָיו וַיְכַפֵּר עַל־בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל

Pinchas, son of Eleazar, son of Aaron the Priest, assuaged My anger from the Israelites when he took My zeal upon himself in their midst, preventing me from destroying Israel in My anger. Therefore, let it be said: Behold, I give him My covenant [of] peace. It should be for him and his descendants a covenant of eternal priesthood for having been zealous for his God and atoning for Israel.

While space does not allow for an extensive examination of the concept of zealotry -qin’ah – here, we can make a few observations. This term is found in several occasions in the Bible, for instance, in the Decalogues. One interesting citation helps to define it, but in the process raises more questions than it answers. In Shir haShirim (Song of Songs) 8:6-7 we read:

כִּי־עַזָּה כַמָּוֶת אַהֲבָה
קָשָׁה כִשְׁאוֹל קִנְאָה
רְשָׁפֶיהָ רִשְׁפֵּי אֵשׁ שַׁלְהֶבֶתְיָה:
מַיִם רַבִּים לֹא יוּכְלוּ לְכַבובּוֹת אֶת־הָאַהֲבָה
וּנְהָרוֹת לֹא יִשְׁטְפוּהָ
אִם־יִתֵּן אִישׁ אֶת־כָּל־הוֹן בֵּיתוֹ בָּאַהֲבָה
בובּוֹז יָבוּזוּ לווֹ

…For love is fierce as death,
Passion (qin’ah) is mighty as Sheol [the netherworld];
its darts are darts of the mightiest flame.
Vast waters cannot extinguish love,
nor can rivers drown it;
if a man offered all the wealth of his household for love,
he would be treated with utter contempt.

The parallel between love and qin’ah (translated in the NJPS edition as “passion”) is clearly drawn, but what of the description of this love? While at once a testimony to the power of love, the metaphor draws on indomitable destructive forces, and while one might surrender his worldly possessions in the pursuit of this love, he may in the process lose his dignity as well. The question, thus, it what type of love is described here? Is it a love marked by mutuality, or is this a love that is marked by infatuation, of ego, of self-love? Which is one more likely to describe with fierce metaphors?

The problem in applying this interpretation of qin’ah to Pinchas’ actions is that he is rewarded with God’s covenant of shalom for this impulsive act of violence. Is a covenant of shalom a fitting reward?

If you thought that discomfort with the zealous act of Pinchas is something for moderns, think again. The Talmud is also troubled by this act of summary justice, as are several commentaries over the ages. It is clear that Pinchas, in lancing both Zimri and Cozbi in flagrante, disregarded all the laws of jurisprudence and would deserve punishment himself for taking matters into his own hands.

Pinchas is hardly mentioned otherwise in Tanach. One other mention is found in Psalm 106:28-31:

וַיִּצָּמְדוּ לְבַעַל פְּעוֹר וַיֹּאכְלוּ זִבְחֵי מֵתִים:
וַיַּכְעִיסוּ בְּמַעַלְלֵיהֶם וַתִּפְרָץ־בָּם מַגֵּפָה:
וַיַּעֲמֹד פִּינְחָס וַיְפַלֵּל וַתֵּעָצַר הַמַּגֵּפָה:
וַתֵּחָשֶׁב לווֹ לִצְדָקָה לְדֹר וָדֹר עַד־עוֹלָם:

They attached to Ba’al P’or and ate offerings of the dead.
They angered with their actions and You brought forth a plague.
Pinchas stood and prayed and You ended the plague.
You accounted it to his merit for all generations forever.

This is not the same story we read in the Torah. The licentiousness is sanitized, but more importantly, so is Pinchas’ action. Finally, detail of the reward goes unspecified. Of course, Ps 106 is an historical summary, so one does not expect the detail as the event is recorded. But Pinchas prayed? That goes unmentioned in the Torah; what is mentioned is that his passionate act of killing Zimri and Cozbi brought an end to the plague.
Perhaps the Psalmist is less than comfortable with Pinchas?

We would say that the reward for Pinchas’ zealous act is the eternal priesthood, but in looking at his actions, is this really a reward? Pinchas’ action is marked by its spontaneity, its spur of the moment reaction to the act that he witnessed. But the priesthood allows for little spontaneity; in fact, one might say that in all its rules and rituals it leaves no room for one to act in a spontaneous manner. If such is the case, then we might see this “reward” as a measure of control, as if God were saying to Pinchas to get into a routine that would prevent such sudden behavior, even if the cause or outcome is correct.
But what makes the outcome here correct? Consider the events before Pinchas took up his spear:

וַיִּחַר־אַף ה' בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל: וַיֹּאמֶר ה' אֶל־מֹשֶׁה קַח אֶת־כָּל־רָאשֵׁי הָעָם וְהוֹקַע אוֹתָם לַה' נֶגֶד הַשָּׁמֶשׁ וְיָשֹׁב חֲרוֹן אַף־ה' מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל: וַיֹּאמֶר מֹשֶׁה אֶל־שֹׁפְטֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל הִרְגוּ אִישׁ אֲנָשָׁיו הַנִּצְמָדִים לְבַעַל פְּעווֹר

... And God was inflamed with Israel. God said to Moshe: Take all the leaders of the people and impale them before God in open daylight, and God’s fierce anger with Israel will subside. Moshe said to the judges of Israel: Each of you, kill those of your men who have attached themselves to Ba’al Pe’or. (24:4-5)

There is some ambiguity here. Does God want Moshe to impale the leaders of the people, or does God want him to impale just the ringleaders responsible for fraternization with the Moabite women? Moshe then instructs the judges to kill those who engaged in the wayward behavior. Apparently, nothing happens, except –

וְהִנֵּה אִישׁ מִבְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בָּא וַיַּקְרֵב אֶל־אֶחָיו אֶת־הַמִּדְיָנִית לְעֵינֵי מֹשֶׁה וּלְעֵינֵי כָּל־עֲדַת בְּנֵי־יִשְׂרָאֵל וְהֵמָּה בֹכִים פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מווֹעֵד

And here came an Israelite man and he brought this Midianite woman before Moshe and before the Israelite community; they were all weeping before the Tent of Meeting. (v. 6)

As the scene unfolds, the leaders - Moshe and those before the Tent - sit and weep, taking no action.

In earlier incidents, when expresses a will to punish all of Israel for grievous misdeeds, Moshe intercedes and God is mollified. Here we see no intercession by Moshe; we also do not see him following through on God’s instructions, but changing them, and they are not carried out. Pinchas sees the inaction, and he also knows that there is a plague running rampant throughout the camp. Did he know God’s instructions to Moshe? Was he aware of the instructions Moshe had given to the judges? We do not know any of this. What we do know is that he acted - he mollified God’s anger by impaling both the Israelite man - a leading Shimonite - and the woman - a leading Moabite, when they acted en flagrante.

The picture of Moshe and the leaders, sitting and weeping at a time when something needed to be done is disturbing. A leader cannot afford the luxury of weeping. Leadership demands deliberation and decisive action. Pinchas acted to fill the vacuum of leadership left open by Moshe and the leaders. When leaders abdicate their responsibilities, that is the point when social and legal institutions break down, when chaos and anarchy can take over, when instinctive reaction takes the place of judicious action.

While Zimri and Cozbi were certainly guilty of their offense, Pinchas acted as judge and witness, denying the two due process, and yet, he did what needed to be done.

In the end, we are left with something nebulous. Sometimes zealous actions may be needed, but there is a problem with spontaneous action. Pinchas’ reward may be a backhanded one, saying that yes, he did the right thing, but he must curb his enthusiasm lest his zeal get out of hand.