The Pulpit Commentary — Numbers — Section 359

made) the excuse for deeds of murderous fanaticism, should be commended in the strongest tenns by the Almighty; that an act of summary vengeance, which we find it somewhat hard to justify on moral grounds, should Le made in a peculiar sense and in a special degree the pattern of the great atonement wrought by the Saviour of mankind ; but this aspect of the deed in the eyes of God by its very unexpected- ness draws our attention to it, and obliges us to consider wherein its distincti,e religious character and excellence lay. It is necessary in the first place to point out that the act of Phinehas did really receive stronger testimony from God than any other act done proprio motu in the Old Testament. What he did was not done officially (for he held no office), nor was it done by command (for the offenders were not under his jurisdiction as judge), nor in fulfilment of any revealed law or duty (for no blame would have attached to him if he had let it alone), and yet it had the same effect in staying the plague as the act of Aaron when he stood between the living and the dead with the hallowed fire in bis hand (see on eh. ui. 46-48). Of both it is said that " he made an atonement for the people," and so far they both appear as having power with God to tum away his wrath and stay his avenging hand. But the atonement made by Aaron was official, for he was the anointed high priest, and, being made with incense from the sanctuary, it was ma-le in nccord- ance with and upon the strength of a ceremonial law laid down by God whereby he had bound himself to exercise his Divine right of pardon. The act of Phinehas, on the contrary, had no legal or ritual value; there is no power of atonement in the blood of sinners, nor had the death of 24,000 guilty people had any effect in turning away the wrath of God from them that survived. It remains, therefore, a startling truth that the deed of Pbinehas is the only act neither official nor commanded, but originating in the impulses of the actor himself, to which the power of atoning for sin is ascribed in the Old Testament: for although in 2 Sam, xxi. 3 David speaks of making an atonement by ghing up seven of Saul's sons, it is evident from the context that the II atonement" was made to the Gibeonites, and not directly to the Lord. Again, the act of Phinehas merited the highest reward from God, a reward which was promised to him in the most absolute tenns. Because he had done this thing he should have God's covenant of peace, he nnd his seed after him, even the covenant of an everlasting priesthood. '£his promise must mean that he and bis seed should have power with God for ever to make peace be- tween heaven and, earth, and to make reconciliation for the sins of the people ; and, meaning this, it is a republication in favour of Phinehas, and in more absolute tenns, of the covenant made with Levi as represented by Aaron (see on Mai. ii. 4, 5). Nor is this all. In Ps. cvi. 31 it is said of his deed that II it was counted unto him for righteousness unto all genc,rations-for evermore." This word II counted" or "im- puted" is the same (:iwn) which is used of .Abraham in Gen. xv, 6, and the very words of the Septuagi~t \ere (l~oyio--9-'I avr,jj 1t, 811caioa-uv1Jv) are applied to the obedi- ence of Abraham in James ii. 23. It appears then that righteousness wns imputed to Phinehas, as to the father of the faithful, with this distinction, that to Phinehas it was imputed as an everlasting righteousness, which is not said of .Abraham. Now if we compare the two, it must be evident that the act of Phinehas was not, like Abraham's, an act of self-sacrificing obedience, nor in any special sense an act of faith. While both acted under the sense of duty, the following of duty in Abraham's case put the greatest possible stuin upon all the natural impulses of mind and heart; in the case of Phinehas it altogether coincided with the impulses of his own will. If 846 THE BOOK OF NUMBERS. [ea. XXV. 1-18.