Study

10. And the Lord spake unto Moses. In these words God makes it appear that He was the author of the death (of Zimri and Cozbi;) ¹⁸⁶¹⁸⁶     Added from Fr. not only because He was thus propitiated towards the people, but because He calls the zeal of Phinehas His own. ¹⁸⁷¹⁸⁷     Margin, A.V., “Heb., with my zeal.” It will, however, accord equally well whether we take it actively or passively, viz., either that Phinehas was inflamed with zeal to vindicate God’s glory, or that he took upon him the zeal of God Himself. Whichever be preferred, God refers to Himself what was done by Phinehas. When He declares that He was appeased by the punishment inflicted, let us not imagine that there was a meritorious satisfaction, whereby the Papists feign that their punishments are redeemed before God. For although the just chastisements of sin are sacrifices of sweet savor, they are by no means expiations to reconcile God. Besides, there is no question here of compensation, but what is meant is, that it was a means of appeasing God, when the ungodliness of the people which had, as it were, fanned up His wrath into a flame, was repressed by this severe correction. Thus, in Psalm 106, the atonement is ascribed not to the act of Phinehas, but only to his prayer, ¹⁸⁸¹⁸⁸     Psalm 106:30 A.V., “Then stood up Phinehas, and executed judgment;” in the English Prayer-book, the Chaldee, Syriac, and other versions, “and prayed;” with this, however, C., in his Commentary, does not agree: “Some render the word פלל, pillel, to pray, (he says;) but the other rendering, to execute justice, is more in accordance with the context.” — Cal. Sec. Edit., vol. 4, p. 230 because, in right of his priesthood, he had humbly interceded for the people. At the same time, the statement of Paul is true, that those are not judged by God who voluntarily judge themselves, (1 Corinthians 11:31,) since, by their penitence, they in a manner prevent this judgment.

A perpetual priesthood is promised to Phinehas as his reward. If any object, that he thus obtained nothing new, since, in accordance with the rule of the law, he was the undoubted successor of his father, I reply, that it is not un-common that what God had already freely promised, He declares that He will give by way of reward. Thus, what had been promised to Abraham before the birth of Isaac, is again repeated after he was prepared to sacrifice him, (Genesis 22:16:) “Because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son,” therefore, “in blessing I will bless thee, and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed.” Besides, the privilege of a single individual is not simply in question here, but it refers to a perpetual succession, as if God had promised that his posterity should never fail. And assuredly, the change which took place at the commencement of Solomon’s reign, is not repugnant to this promise, for it may be probably inferred that Zadoc, no less than Abiathar, was of the race of Phinehas. This covenant is called a “covenant of peace,” because it was to be surely established; consequently, it may be properly rendered, “My covenant in peace.” At any rate, it indicates prosperity, as if He had said that Phinehas, together with his posterity, should prosperously execute the sacerdotal office.