Theology For Men of the West: Leaders Are Responsible

What Moses Should Have Done With The Leaders

The story that is told in Numbers 25 is one of the most politically explosive lessons in all of the Bible.  The reason is simple:  God held the leaders responsible for the sins of the people.

As we saw in a previous post, Balack took the advice of Baalam and sent the young women into the camp.  They invited the people (men) to the sacrifices to their gods.  The men went with them, ate and bowed down and thus were joined to Baal of Peor.  God was angry with Israel so He turned to Moses.

The Lord said to Moses, “Take all the leaders of the people and execute them in broad daylight before the Lord, so that the fierce anger of the Lord may turn away from Israel.”

Seems pretty straight-forward, right?  Obviously God is holding the leaders responsible for what was happening, so we’d expect to read that Moses killed them.  Right?   Well, no, he didn’t.  He refused to obey God and sided with his fellow leaders.

So Moses said to the judges of Israel, “Each of you slay his men who have joined themselves to Baal of Peor.”

Those judges were the very men Moses was supposed to have executed, had he chosen to obey the Lord.  So, the wrong people are now being executed, but we don’t get a casualty figure on that.  Because they’re just little people and they don’t count.  They’re not leaders.  And God’s anger really burned against Israel so He sent a plague into the camp and the people started dropping like flies.

Then, Zimri, one of the chief princes of the tribe of Simeon (making him one of those who should have been executed) came strolling into the camp with a wench named Cozbi on his arm.  Cozbi was the daughter of Zur, who God described as the leader of Midian.   So, one of the high-ranking leaders of the tribe of Simeon walks into camp with a Midianite princess on his arm and they stroll right past the tent of meeting where Moses and the congregation were weeping at the doorway of the tent.  Why were they weeping?  Because of the plague that was killing them.

Keep in mind, Zimri had to have been involved with having the men of the tribe of Simeon killed for doing what he was about to do.  And he knew (or should have known) that there was a reason a plague was sweeping through the camp killing people.  With that in mind, picture Zimri and Cozbi strolling past the congregation and Moses in plain sight of everyone on their way to Zimri’s tent for, um… some tea.  Yes.  Tea for two.


Are The Leaders Above the Law?

Obviously Zimri thought he was above the Law as he and his hoochie-mamma walked to his tent, oblivious to everything surrounding them.  Horniness has a way of doing that.   But one man, Phineas the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the High Priest, was zealous for the Lord and he saw what was happening and took action.

he arose from the midst of the congregation and took a spear in his hand, and he went after the man of Israel into the tent and pierced both of them through, the man of Israel and the woman, through the body.

Tradition has it that it only took one thrust of the spear to get both of them, but he did get them.  And they died.  Because he killed them.  With a spear.  And obviously Phineas somehow turned into a religious radical and killed a government official without a trial or anything like that, which was murder…  well, obviously…  and that’s probably what some were thinking back then too.  And spear control!  There ought to be spear control!   But very quickly none of that mattered because God stepped in.  First, He stopped the plague that was going through the camp.  The death toll was 24,000 dead in one day.

Then God spoke to Moses.

“Phinehas the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, has turned away My wrath from the sons of Israel in that he was jealous with My jealousy among them, so that I did not destroy the sons of Israel in My jealousy.  Therefore say, ‘Behold, I give him My covenant of peace; and it shall be for him and his descendants after him, a covenant of a perpetual priesthood, because he was jealous for his God and made atonement for the sons of Israel.’”

That is the 4th Priesthood of the Bible.  What do Phineas Priests do?  They’re jealous for God’s Law and they execute justice on untouchable leaders who think they’re above the Law.  So, go ahead and start calling yourself a Phineas Priest and see how fast the FBI is all over you.  Or worse, setting you up as a pasty in their next false-flag op.  Because you better believe that nobody in a position of leadership wants to hear that they’re really going to be held responsible.  They’re like Moses and just want to kill your sorry ass.

But God wasn’t done.  Now it was time to deal with the Midianites and we learn more.

Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, “Be hostile to the Midianites and strike them; for they have been hostile to you with their tricks, with which they have deceived you in the affair of Peor and in the affair of Cozbi, the daughter of the leader of Midian, their sister who was slain on the day of the plague because of Peor.”

Look at what God is saying!  He KNEW the people were being manipulated and the leaders should have caught what was happening and put a stop to it.  But they didn’t.  And God held them responsible for that.  And when one man decided he wasn’t going to allow God to be dishonored that way and killed one of the leaders and some visiting royalty…   God gave him a covenant of peace for him and his descendants after him… a covenant of a perpetual priesthood.  The Phineas Priesthood.  And if God said it was perpetual, that means the Phineas Priests are still around.  Today.


Lesson Learned:  The leaders are responsible when the people are led astray.  That’s about to be very important.


This entry was posted in Theology For Men of the West. Bookmark the permalink.

20 Responses to Theology For Men of the West: Leaders Are Responsible

  1. SnapperTrx says:

    Wow! I just read over those verses a couple of weeks ago and it never struck me as to what Phineas actually did! I mean, I understood that he struck with God’s jealousy, but I never noticed how Moses sidestepped his responsibility like that, or realized the position of Zimri! Crazy!

  2. fuzziewuzziebear says:

    Not that I recognize the photo, but it is ironic that godless Communists are shown to make a point .

    It would be a switch for God to hold leaders responsible for anything. I would just love to see Hillary prosecuted. The problem is they have been getting away with it so long, they presume they are immune and the people are made to pay.

    • What God told Moses to do set the stage for what Elijah did at Mount Carmel when he executed the 450 priests of Baal who ate at the queen’s table.

      But as far as God holding leaders accountable, you might appreciate what is coming about 2 posts from now…

      • fuzziewuzziebear says:

        Looking forward to it! However, even if leaders are punished for what they are responsible for, the message won’t sink in. They have been laying it off since forever. The last king who suffered was Arthur and that is only legend.

  3. feeriker says:

    It is a testament to God’s patience and enduring love that He didn’t strike Moishe dead when he refused to obey God’s command to kill the fallen priests. Moishe should hsve known better than any human that when YHWH is in a mood to kick ass and erase names, the one thing a mere mortal does NOT do is refuse Him what He demands. After so many years of being God’s Top Dog, Moishe’s head must have swollen to the size of a hot air balloon. Very foolish.

  4. anglosaxon says:

    Leaders don’t fear God because God never punishes leaders. If I don’t pay their taxes or break one of 1000s of rules I get immediately punished. If they invite into the country huge numbers of people who hate us, waste huge amounts of money, allow, encourage and promote wickedness then absolutely nothing happens to them. God is taking a very long time to punish anyone.

    • SnapperTrx says:

      Given the story above with regard to Phinehas, perhaps Gods justice need be dealt by those who are his. Notice Phinehas didn’t stop to pray, fast or ask God what to do, he knew what he was seeing was a gross violation and offensive to God, and that was all he needed. He moved quickly, and God rewarded him for it. Certainly not something that could be done today in terms of government and all that, but certainly if the people of a church see one of their leaders going astray they could easily rise up and call him out, instead of sitting on their hands and wondering when the guy next to them will do it. In addition the leaders of the church should be more than capable, and willing, to call out those in their congregation who are living ungodly lives of constant sin, and be willing to kick them out of the church if they are unwilling to repent and turn away from their evil deeds. I can say that in all of my life I have never seen this happen, and have only read a few accounts of it actually happening online. The pastor of my old church, bless his heart, has a love for people who used to have drug problems like him, but he kept allowing them into the church, even after years and years and years of them staying in the lifestyle. Perhaps he should have told them they have no place there unless they can get themselves straightened out, instead of allowing them to come into the building, time and time again, strung out or wasted, and merely slapping their wrist.

      • anglosaxon says:

        Yes that’s true. I was talking to one of my elders today about the problem of people believing in evolution in church. It’s one of the first times I’ve pushed on an issue. I’ll look out for more oppurtunities to act in the future.

        • I attended a lecture on apologetics and islam once that was fascinating. Look at the fundamentals of what you’re being required to believe and it’s a ridiculous crock of shit. Which is why they become so violent when these things are pointed out.

          Same thing with evolution.

          The old analogy of the general theory of evolution being like a tornado passing through a junk-yard that assembles a perfectly functioning Boeing 747 is actually quite good. For non-believers. For Christians, not only is it intellectually ridiculous and silly, it’s idolatry. If the so-called ‘Christian’ wants to believe that crap, the door is over *there* and don’t let it smack you in the ass on your way out.

  5. anglosaxon says:

    Why do people believe in it? They just made it all up. Apparently 6600000000 years ago a meteor hit earth and killed amost everything. Bloody hell, every single explosion which has ever been seen by man has been destructive. Except the Big Bang! Which was the spark which created life! Which nobody saw! But you better believe us or we’ll laugh at you! Dawkins and friends are laughing straight to the bank.

    • Evolution is the gospel of secular humanism. It’s a religion that says nobody can forbid whatever sexual practices they want to engage in.

      The funny part is DNA analysis clearly states that Humans have only been around for the past 80,000 years and some data says it’s down around 35,000 years. Which is *nothing* on the so-called “evolutionary clock” that is taught.

      It’s all about sex, power and control.

    • SnapperTrx says:

      Given the complexity of something such as the human eye I like to tell people “Its like believing you can throw a 1 billion piece puzzle in the air and it will land with every piece in it’s proper place. Now multiply that impossibility times every system in your body, then multiply that by every living creature on the planet.”

      As I like to say in a wrote British accent: Not bloody loykley!

  6. anglosaxon says:

    I’ve recieved a response from another elder I’ve talked with. He says that ‘cleave’ in Exodus doesn’t just refer to sex, but to a public commitment as well which means sex doesn’t equal marriage. He also says that the law regarding marrying the seduced virgin and the raped virgin isn’t about sex = marriage but about marrying the girl AFTER sex has happened to protect her. Would you be able to help me answer these responses? I should have spent more time studying the bible before I started challenging what the church says so I’m not as confident and knowledgeable as I should be.

    • SnapperTrx says:

      Toad has already done several great posts that include word references and comparisons. A quick search of his blog should get you the results you are looking for. Good luck and god speed, as I have already had to challenge my church elders on scripture as well. It can be nerve wracking, but just make sure you read up and understand what you are saying fully before you continue.

    • You need to read the Law of Marriage post.

      The Hebrew word “dabaq” as used in Genesis 2:24 is the key. The claim of the churchians is that word means “commitment” and further, they claim the commitment must be made in a public ceremony. You must understand the following facts and be able to support them from Scripture.

      • The father is in authority over his daughter until she marries, at which time he is no longer in authority over her again. With marriage his authority permanently ends.
      • The husband is in authority over his wife.
      • Sex with the eligible virgin results in marriage, according to Genesis 2:24.
      • The virgin’s consent is not required.
      • The father has the right to review any and all agreements his daughter makes and forbid them if he doesn’t like them, which generally means after the fact.

      Thus, we have a conflict of law in which (at least in theory) the man could seduce the virgin and she is now his wive, under his authority and not her father. The question becomes: does the father have the authority to forbid the marriage after the fact in the day he hears of it? Because after the fact means they’re already married. They had sex.

      Moses settled it and the answer is yes, the father can forbid a marriage agreement, which invalidates the marriage because (after the fact) he makes the man ineligible. In verse 16 the father says nothing, so the man has to pay the bride price for his wife. In verse 17 the father forbids it, the man is no longer eligible and the sex with her does not result in marriage. As the text states, her father is absolutely refusing to give her in marriage to that man although he has already taken her virginity.

      If that sounds crazy, remember that part about marriage being a type for the relationship of the church to Christ? The father can retroactively forbid his daughter’s agreement and God will forgive her because her father has forbidden her just like the Father can forgive all our sins, past-present-future because we have become one body with Christ.

      As to the sex=marriage, that is settled with a comparison of Genesis 2:24 and Exodus 22:28-29. The discovery of the rape was the proof that the daughter made no agreement her father could forbid. Notice the passage says nothing about what happens if they were not discovered, which means the issue falls within the authority of the father to decide.

      The idea they must be married… there goes the entire consent issue. Understand, if the man and woman didn’t consent to marry, then according to your elder they would not be married. Yet, Scripture says they are. No matter how this goes they have to keep spinning harder and harder to cover themselves on this. Would they be required to consent? Is consent gained under duress valid?

      Understanding that becoming “one flesh” is a spiritual joining, the text states the two “shall become one flesh.” The question is, when does that happen? Sometime in the future? The text states the man shall “cleave” or “be joined” to his wife and they shall become one flesh.” The construction of the sentence says it all happens at the same time. And the same word is used in “become one flesh” as “become his wife.” It’s instant with the sex. That’s why in Exodus 22:16, he has to pay a dowry for her, his wife. Present tense, his wife. The translators added the “to be” because it isn’t in the text.

      Then comes the question of the “public commitment ceremony” that Scripture does not describe or mention at all. We see the ceremony for testing the wife’s purity at Numbers 5:11-31. We see the ceremony of the passover and the feast of the unleaven bread in Exodus 12. Those are merely two of the many places where God wanted things done a certain way and He gave clear and detailed instruction.

      What about marriage?

      God described the wedding ceremony in only a few words: “he shall cleave to his wife” and this is why the churchians deny the word “dabaq” that is translated as “cleave” means sex. As soon as it includes sex, the act of sexual intercourse becomes the commitment ceremony. Which is exactly what it is. The man makes his commitment every time he penetrates a woman. Every single time. Renewing vows? Every time they have sex.

      Then the the churchians whine and scream and cry that the word “dabaq” everywhere else when used of relationships means “commitment” and therefore it MUST mean commitment as used in Genesis 2:24. That’s where the “dabaq”“kollao” relationship becomes so important. The Apostle Paul defined what “dabaq” meant in Genesis 2:24 with the use of the word “kollao” in 1st Corinthians 6:16.

      Using the exact same exegetical process that gave them “commitment” in Genesis 2:24, you get “fidelity and loyalty” in 1st Corinthians 6:16.

      Using that approach the Apostle Paul was not forbidding Christian men from having sex with prostitutes, he was forbidding men from marrying them. Which means there is no longer any prohibition on sex with prostitutes anywhere in Scripture. Search my blog for chess, not checkers and black knighting. There was a fantastic discussion of this in those posts.

      But men don’t go to prostitutes for fidelity and commitment because that it the one thing prostitutes don’t sell. They sell sex and the next guy that comes along gets sex too, as long as he has money. Men go to prostitutes for sex.

      • anglosaxon says:

        Thanks for the answers. Have you written an article addressing MGTOW? There are some divorced men at my church and it appears to me that the most sensible thing to do is avoid relationships with women because they can destroy your life. The church will applaud them doing so. The west is effed regardless of what I do.

        • The west is effed regardless of what I do.

          You speak as a foolish woman does. Stop it. Now. You have much to learn and accepting your own defeat before you even get started is stupid.

          I will be dealing with the MGTOW in some future posts, but for now, what did the Lord say? “It is not good for man to be alone, I will create for him a helper suitable for him.”

          Did God get it wrong? Consider the lesson of Genesis 3:16, which is that the woman’s desire is for the man who is fit to rule over her. In order to be worthy of a woman’s desire, the man must be fit to rule.

          The MGTOW are characterized by one thing: they are not fit to rule and for the most part they are not willing to make the changes in themselves to become fit to rule.

          Intellectually it is easy to look at what women have become and say “I give up on women” followed by a bulleted list of all the major reasons why it’s useless. It’s called defeatism.

          I will be covering this issue as well as several others in the coming months. It will probably be uncomfortable, but truth is like that.

          • anglosaxon says:

            Thanks for the kick up the arse. I look forward to your post on MGTOW. I have a problem of over thinking things instead of doing something about the problem.

  7. Pingback: Frame, Fitness Tests and Feminism | Toad's Hall

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s