The case of Phinehas in the Old Testament is a favourite of mine, especially as it refutes Reformed theology (on this, see Response to a Recent Attempt to Defend Imputed Righteousness). On Phinehas, his act of propitiation, and more, note the following from:
Alec J. Lucas, Evocations of the Calf? Romans
1:18-2:11 and the Substructure of Psalm 106 (105) (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift
für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 201; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2015),
66-69, 73
Initiation into Baal of Peor and Phinehas’
Propitiation (vv. 28-31)
The primary, though not exclusive, background for the
sixth sin in vv. 28-31 is Num 25:1-18. This text details what happened to the
then adult wilderness generation, toward the end of their years of wandering.
With terms or phrases that are important for Ps 106(105) in bold, Num 25:1-3
begins the story as follows:
Table 10. Num 25:1-3
|
1 καὶ κατέλυσεν Ισραηλ ἐν Σαττιν καὶ ἐβεβηλώθη
ὁ λαὸς ἐκπορνεῦσαι εἰς τὰς θυγατέρας Μωαβ 2 καὶ ἐκάλεσαν αὐτοὺς ἐπὶ
ταῖς θυσίαις τῶν εἰδώλων αὐτῶν καὶ ἔφαγεν ὁ λαὸς τῶν θυσιῶν αὐτῶν καὶ προσεκύνησαν
τοῖς εἰδώλοις αὐτῶν 3 καὶ ἐτελέσθη Ισραηλ τῷ Βεελφεγωρ καὶ ὠργίσθη
θυμῷ κύριος τῷ Ισραηλ |
1 And Israel stayed in Shittim: and the
people desecrated themselves by fornicating with the daughters of
Moab. 2 And they [Moabite daughters] invited them to their idol
sacrifices, and the people ate of their sacrifices and they
worshipped their idols. 3 And Israel was initiated into
Baal of Peor: and the LORD became enraged with wrath at Israel. |
As the story continues, Moses attempts to avert the
LORD’s wrath by telling the tribes of Israel that those initiated into Baal of
Peor should be killed by their family members (Num 25:4-5). At least one man,
however, does the exact opposite. Rather than killing family members who had
been initiated into Baal of Peor, he instead fosters further fornication by
bringing his brother to a Midianite woman in front of Moses and the Israelite
assembly, (πληγη) who are weeping before the Tent of the
Testimony. In response, Phinehas, the priest, son of Eleazar and grandson of
Aaron, takes a barbed lance and slays this Israelite man and his Midianite
woman, stopping the plague () that had broken out and limiting its death toll
to 24,000 (vv. 6-9). The LORD then rewards Phinehas for his “propitiatory” (εξιλασκομαι) act, (33) granting him an eternal priestly covenant
for his zeal (vv. 10-13), and the account concludes with the names of the
fornicating couple as well as a divine mandate for Israelite enmity toward the
Midianites (vv. 14-18).
. . . [Psa 106:30-31] provide hope of an enduring
righteous lineage by invoking Phinehas’ propitiatory intervention. Yet, absent
from these verses are prominent elements from the account in Num 25:11-13,
including Phinehas’ zeal and the priestly nature of the covenant that is
restricted to his descendants. (34) Moreover, v. 31a proves to be an exact
match in the LXX with Gen 15:6b: καὶ ἐλογίσθη αὐτῷ εἰς δικαιοσύνην (“and [it]
was reckoned to him for righteousness”). (35) At first, Phinehas’
“propitiation” (εξιλασκομαι) in v. 30a seems to be an unambiguous
reference to the latter part of Num 25:13: καὶ ἐξιλάσατο περὶ τῶν υἱῶν Ισραηλ
(“And he made propitiation for the children of Israel”). This is because MT Ps
106:30a presents Phinehas as prayerfully “interceding” (פלל), not performing
propitiation. Thus Jan Joosten, discussing v. 30a under the heading of
“Assimilation to the Greek Pentateuch,” suggests that the translation here has
probably been influenced by LXX Num 25:13.
Counting against Joosten’s suggestion, however, is the
rendering of מגפה (“blow, slaughter, plague”). (37) In MT 106, מגפה occurs
twice in vv. 29b and 30b. The term πτωσις (“fall,
falling”) renders the first instance and θραυσις (shattering,
destruction, slaughter”) the second, thus obscuring the lexical parallelism of
the MT. If the LXX Psalms translator had been influenced by LXX Num 25, one
would have expected him to translate מגפה with πληγη (“blow, wound, plague”), as it is rendered in LXX Num 25:8, 9. Instead,
for v. 30b he chose θραυσις, the term used to translate HEB in Num
16:48, 49, 50. The result [is] that, even more so than Moses’ intervention (v.
23b-c), Phinehas’ propitiation (v. 30) matches that of Aaron in Num 16:46-50.
This is not to exclude any relationship with Num 25. After all, in addition to
the similarity between vv. 28029 and Num 25:1-3, noted above, Phinehas’s
propitiation in v. 30a recalls, at least to some degree, the sacrificial
slaying of the Israelite man and his Midianite mistress in Num 25:8. It is
rather to suggest that the evidence of “Assimilation to the Greek Pentateuch”
points instead to Num 16. (38)
. . .
Any inclination to suspect that these similarities
[between Aaron’s and Phineas’ acts of propitiation] are mere coincidence is
undermined by the more complete transfer of Aaron’s intercessory role to that of
his grandson, Phinehas, in v. 30. Once again the terms in bold indicate this
transfer:
Table 15. More complete Transfer of Aaronic Intercession in Ps
106(105):30
|
30 καὶ ἔστη Φινεες καὶ ἐξιλάσατο
καὶ ἐκόπασεν ἡ θραῦσις |
30 And Phinehas stood and made
propitiation, and the shattering ceased . . . |
The only word that does not find an exact parallel in
Num 16:14-50 is the name “Phinehas.” Moreover, the phrase “and the shattering
ceased” in v.30b occurs twice in Num 16:48, 50. The result of this double
transfer of Aaron’s intercessory role is that the depiction of Moses in v.
23b-c, while picking up where the allusion in vv. 16-18 left off, also looks
forward to that of Phinehas in v. 30. Thus the intertextual centrality of the
golden calf incident is underscored.
Notes for the Above:
(32) Contrary to the LXX, MT Num 25:6 says that an
Israelite man brought a Midianite woman to his brothers (i.e., family). Weaves
(Notes on the Greek Text of Numbers, 422) attributes this difference to
a transposition of אל and את. See his explanation for details.
(33) Dirk Büchner (“’Εκιλασασθαι: Appeasing God in the Septuagint Pentateuch,” JBL 129 [2010]:
237-60[237] observes: “The simplex verb ιλασκομαι and its
compound εξιλασκομαι indicate in Greek literature the action
‘appease,’ ‘placate,’ ‘propitiate,’ and are found in both the religious and
secular realms. The word group . . . expresses the process by which a person
could restore to kindness and aggrieved deity or fellow mortal, who would
typically appear as the direct object of the verb.” Büchner goes on to argue
convincingly against the claim, common among LXX scholars, that, in light of
its Hebrew counterpart כפר, this word-group may be understood in the sense of
to “purge” or “expiate” sin. He instead proposes that, faced with the multiple
occasions in the LXX in which the verb is followed by a prepositional phrase
and lacks a direct object (e.g. Num 25:13), something for which there is
virtually no precedent outside of biblical literature, “Greek speakers would in
all likelihood have recognized an abbreviated formula with a deity understood”
(p. 254).
(34) For texts evoking Phinehas’ zeal, cf. 1 Macc
2:26, 54; 4 Macc 18;12; Sir 45:23.
(35) The only difference in the MT is that in Gen
15:6b חשב is active, with God as the implied subject.
(36) Joosten, “Impact,” 201-3.
(37) In the MT מגפה occurs 26x in 25 verses. The LXX
translates מגפה as follow: απωλεια, 1x (1 Chr
21:17); θραυσις, 8x (Num 16:48, 49, 50; 2 Sam 17:9; 18:7;
24:21, 25; Ps 106[105]:30); παραταξις, 1x (Ezek
24:16); πληγη, 9x (Num 14:37; 25:8, 9, 18; 19[26:1];
31:16; 1 Sam 4:17; 1 Chr 21:22; 2 Chr 21:14), πραισμα, 1x (1 Sam 6:4); συναντημα, 5x (Ps
106[105]:29; Zech 14:12, 15[x2], 18); συναντημα, 1x (Exod
9:14).
(38) Joosten (“Impact,” 203, n. 18) discerns
the influence of Num 16 (identified according to the versification in Rahlfs’s LXX
as Num 17:12-15) on v. 23 but not on v. 30. Smith (“Linguistic,” 173, 183-84),
however, discerns the influence on both verses.
