Print
PDF FormatIn this passage, Isaiah makes two deliberate allusions to the Pinhas episode: The “day of Midian,” referring to the Israelite war against Midian in the desert that was sparked and led by Pinhas, and the “vengeance of the Eternal,” a rare term first introduced in the Pinhas story. Like the young Levite, this “Prince of Peace” will bring the “expansion of the kingdom” and “everlasting peace upon the throne of David” as a result of his uncompromising dedication to “judgment and righteousness.”60
The choice of Pinhas as a model is puzzling. Why is the righteous fervor of Pinhas a necessary character trait for the “Prince of Peace”? Like God’s earlier selection of Pinhas to receive the unique “covenant of peace,” this prophetic vision underscores a premise that lies at the very heart of the biblical peace idea: That peace stems not from compromising what one knows to be right for the sake of avoiding conflict, but from a complete unwillingness to compromise on morality and justice—even if force must be employed to defend them.
Isaiah’s employment of the Pinhas story is therefore deliberate and telling, as is Ezekiel’s usage (above) of the “covenant of peace”—a pointed reference to the reward Pinhas received.61 To these prophets, Pinhas is not really an enigma at all: He is the man who more than anyone else represents the lost biblical ideal of peace—the idea that peace and well-being can never be attained at the expense of justice and morality.
The idea that cessation of hostilities is a goal which justifies the compromise of all other principles—and especially justice—has been a staple of pacifist thought for millennia. Cicero’s formulation of this idea in the first century B.C.E. is still the accepted wisdom today: “I cease not to advocate peace; even though unjust, it is better than the most just war.”62 Martin Luther said the same sixteen hundred years later: “Peace is more important than all justice; and peace was not made for the sake of justice, but justice for the sake of peace.”63 It is this belief which leads many modern diplomats to pursue treaties with even the most brutal of dictators—such as the appeasement doctrine of the 1930s that cited “peace” as the moral justification for repeated acquiescence by European leaders to the demands of Nazi Germany.
In the biblical view, however, peace requires that justice be done—even at the point of a sword. It is this premise which underlies all the messianic visions: The military victories over evildoing nations depicted therein are fundamental for peace, because they are necessary for the ultimate triumph of the Jewish vision of justice and righteousness—and it is for this reason that Pinhas, whose entire story is the staunch defense of righteousness, becomes the sole biblical figure worthy of God’s “covenant of peace.”64
Whereas Pinhas may be the archetype of the obstinate defender of morality in the Books of Moses, he is by no means alone. His forefather Levi, son of Jacob, demonstrates a similar passion for righteousness, moral principle and the integrity of Israel in the book of Genesis. After Shechem, prince of the Hittites, kidnaps and rapes Jacob’s daughter Dina, and then sends his father Hamor to acquire Dina for him as a wife, the sons of Jacob conspire to avenge the family’s honor. In an elaborate ruse, the children of Israel convince Hamor and Shechem to have their entire city circumcised, in exchange for the promise of Israelite women. While the men of the city are bedridden from fulfilling their end of the bargain, Levi and his brother Simeon enter the city in stealth and slay every male:
And on the third day, while they were in pain, Jacob’s two sons, Simeon and Levi, brothers of Dina, took each his sword, entered the city securely, and killed every male.... And Jacob said to Simeon and to Levi, “You have undermined me, humiliating me in the eyes of the local inhabitants, the Canaanites and the Prizites—for I am few in number, and they will join together against me and attack me, and I and my house will be vanquished.” And they said: “Shall they make our sister into a harlot?”65
While Jacob responds with what today would be considered a “pro-peace” argument, that is, a willingness to sacrifice one’s integrity or concern for justice for the sake of avoiding conflict, the rogue brothers retort that the family’s honor and the punishment of evildoers are principles that far outweigh Jacob’s political concerns. If the “peace” between the peoples was ruined, it was the rapist and his cohorts, not the victims, who were to blame.
And the scriptural account goes on to vindicate the brothers. For even though the argument appears to end in a stand-off, ensuing events prove Jacob’s judgment to be misguided: “And they traveled, and the terror of God was upon the neighboring cities, and they did not pursue the children of Jacob.”66 Not only did Simeon and Levi ensure that justice was carried out and the family’s dignity maintained, but their uncompromising action went much further in preventing conflict and neutralizing the threat of war than Jacob’s policy of appeasement. The security that the family of Jacob suddenly enjoyed, which enabled them to travel freely and accumulate wealth, was due precisely to the strength demonstrated by the brothers in defending the purity and honor of God’s chosen, and of God himself by extension.
A similar event involves the Levites in the Golden Calf debacle in the book of Exodus. Upon receiving the tablets of the Ten Commandments, Moses descends from his forty-day prophetic retreat on Mt. Sinai to discover that the Israelites have compromised their monotheism to prostrate themselves before a sacred cow, having convinced themselves that their salvation from Egypt had come from an idol of their own making. Appalled, Moses sees a need for decisive action:
And Moses stood at the gate of the camp, and cried, “Whoever is with the Eternal, let him come to me!” And all the children of Levi joined him. And he said to them. “Thus says the Eternal, God of Israel: Each man place his sword at his thigh, go forth, passing from gate to gate in the camp, and kill each man his brother, each man his neighbor, each man his kinsman.” And the children of Levi acted according to Moses’ word, and on that day there fell among the people about three thousand men. And Moses said, “Consecrate yourselves today to the Eternal, every man for his son and his brother, that he may give to you today a blessing.”67
It was the Levites alone—Moses, too, was a Levite—who grasped the magnitude of the event and the need for immediate, severe action to prevent the people from either misreading a delay by Moses as implying his consent, attempting to reach a compromise that would legitimate their idolatry, or organizing themselves militarily in defense of their “god,” causing a civil war. And indeed, the Levites’ drastic measures quell the corruption—with several thousand idolaters slain, and their deity melted down, ground and tossed into the water, the moment of crisis passes.
The reward for the Levites’ fealty to an untainted monotheism and willingness to act decisively in the defense of righteousness and national honor is striking in its similarity to that of Pinhas: The Levites earn themselves the eternal duty of priesthood and maintenance of the Tabernacle and, from Solomon’s day onward, the Holy Temple.68 The prophet Malachi draws the parallel between these duties and Pinhas’ “covenant of peace” explicitly: “And you shall know that I have sent you this commandment, that my covenant might be with Levi, said the Eternal of Hosts. My covenant was with him for life and for peace.... evil was not found on his lips; he walked with me in peace and righteousness, and turned many away from evil.”69
The Pinhas story, then, is really the third installment in the saga of the Levites’ moral fortitude—not a tale of unpunished thuggery, but a pointed expression of the biblical idea of a most peaceful character. In Pinhas we discover a man who demonstrates an unshaking dedication to righteousness and the nation’s well-being, a keen political insight enabling him to appreciate the scale of the threat and the need for immediate action, and the willingness to take extreme measures—despite the risks involved and the inaction of his peers—to ensure that truth and justice carry the day. By now, the connection between Pinhas and peace is clear: He is a man whose staunch moral stand saved Israel from disaster, effecting a victory of good over evil, and in so doing bringing well-being to his nation—just as his Levitical forebears had done.
