Parashah Pinchas Commentary

[R' Y'hoshua Moshe]

The following is a commentary from Rabbi Ya'akov BenYosef on Parashah: Pinchas “Phineas”

Remember, don't forget to add your comments
Enjoy!

- Bamidbar (Numbers) 25:10- 30:1

16 Tamuz 5765 - July 23, 2005

"Unfortunately, the is often interpreted to fit into a doctrinal understanding. However, the does not always agree with our doctrinal understanding. The ’s purpose is to reveal HaShem to the world. When the does not agree with doctrine it is human nature to force the to fit our doctrine. Forcing the to fit into a doctrinal understanding is dangerous because it leads to misinterpretation. Yeshua addressed how misinterpretation can lead to vain worship in Mathew 15:9 which states “in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.” To avoid misinterpreting the we must remember that HaShem is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. Bamidbar 23:19 states;

“God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?”.

Because HaShem is unchanging, the is also unchanging. Pinchas shows us how unchanging the is.

Bamidbar 25:1-13 states;

“Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, hath turned my wrath away from the children of Israel, while he was zealous for my sake among them, that I consumed not the children of Israel in my jealousy. Wherefore say, Behold, I give unto him my covenant of peace: And he shall have it, and his seed after him, even the covenant of an everlasting priesthood; because he was zealous for his God, and made an atonement for the children of Israel.”

Pinchas’s zealousness in serving HaShem brought blessings to him and his descendants. HaShem blessed them with a covenant of everlasting peace and an eternal priesthood. Pinchas’s blessing seems to conflict with the blessings given to the Melchizedekian priesthood. For example, Tehillim 110:4 states;

“YHVH hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.”

Also in Hebrews 5:5-6 it clearly states that the Messiah is to be made high priest by the order of Melchizedek. How can HaShem promise two different people from different tribes an eternal priesthood? In fact, Hebrews 7:13-14 even explains that Yeshua cannot partake of Pinchas’s blessing by stating;

“For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Judah; of which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priesthood.”

Clearly because Yeshua is of Judah he cannot replace the descendants of the tribe of Levi as an Aharonic priest. Therefore we should not try to force Yeshua to fit into the mold of a priest by the order of Aharon. To fully understand the Melchizedekian priesthood we must understand two precepts. First, the promise HaShem made to Pinchas did not guarantee Pinchas and his descendants that they would eternally fulfill the role of high priest. Secondly, we must consider the relationship the eleven other tribes have with the tribe of Judah.

In B'resheet 49 verses 5-7 the tells us that the tribe of Levi and Simeon are cursed because of their anger. As a result, the tribe of Levi lost its inheritance in the land. Therefore, Levi and Simeon are scattered throughout all of the land of Yisrael. HaShem reiterates this in Bamidbar 18:20 which states;

“YHVH spoke unto Aaron, Thou shall have no inheritance in their land, neither shall thou have any part among them: I am thy part and thine inheritance among the children of Israel.”

With no land the decedents of Aharon are required to rely on the other tribes to survive. B'resheet 49 verses 8-12 tells us that the tribe of Judah is blessed. The blessing of the tribe of Judah is that all of the other tribes will eventually be pay homage to Judah, as B'resheet 49:8 states;

“Judah, thou art he whom thy brethren shall praise: thy hand shall be in the neck of thine enemies; thy father’s children shall bow down before thee.”

Therefore, the relationship between Judah and Levi is two-fold.

First, Levi is required to honor Judah. Secondly, Levi is required to depend on Judah for sustenance. As a result, the descendants of Levi must recognize this and learn to serve Judah. We see this happen in 1 Sh'mu'el 21:4-6 which states;

“the priest answered David, and said, There is no common bread under mine hand, but there is hallowed bread; if the young men have kept themselves at least from women. And David answered the priest, and said unto him, Of a truth women have been kept from us about these three days, since I came out, and the vessels of the young men are holy, and the bread is in a manner common, yea, though it were sanctified this day in the vessel. So the priest gave him hallowed bread: for there was no bread there but the shewbread, that was taken from before YHVH, to put hot bread in the day when it was taken away.”

The Levitical priests allowed David and his men to eat the holy bread. The sons of Levi honored David's authority by giving him and his men the holy bread that had been set before HaShem.

Ezekiel visualizes this same type of relationship in the future. Ezekiel 44:15 states;

”But the priests the Levites, the sons of Zadok, that kept the charge of my sanctuary when the children of Israel went astray from me, they shall come near to me to minister unto me, and they shall stand before me to offer unto me the fat and the blood, saith the Lord YHVH: They shall enter into my sanctuary, and they shall come near to my table, to minister unto me, and they shall keep my charge.”

Zadok is a descendant of Pinchas and still permitted to minister as a priest in Ezekiel’s temple. However, Ezekiel also visualized the Melchizedekian priesthood in Ezekiel 44:3 which states;

“This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter in by it; because YHVH, the God of Israel, hath entered in by it, therefore it shall be shut. It is for the prince; the prince, he shall sit in it to eat bread before YHVH; he shall enter by the way of the porch of that gate, and shall go out by the way of the same.”

Clearly Ezekiel saw that a prince would rule over the temple and be continually in the presence of HaShem. Since HaShem’s ordained rulers must come from the tribe of Judah, this prince must also come from Judah. In fact, Ezekiel 37:25 also states that David will be prince over Yisrael forever. However, this prince is greater than David as Ezekiel 47:8 makes clear;

“Then said he unto me, These waters issue out toward the east country, and go down into the desert, and go into the sea: which being brought forth into the sea, the waters shall be healed. And it shall come to pass, that every thing that lived, which moved, whither soever the rivers shall come, shall live: and there shall be a very great multitude of fish, because these waters shall come thither: for they shall be healed”

Because a river of healing water flows from the temple like in both Zechariah 14:8 and Revelations 22:,1 the prince that rules and reigns in Ezekiel’s temple must be Yeshua. With Yeshua in the temple, the Melchizedekian high priest is always present. Therefore, the decedents of Pinchas eternally serve the Prince from the tribe of Judah. To fully understand the correlation, we need to dissect the word Melchizedek. Melchizedek literally translates into king of righteousness. When divided the two words that combine to make Melchizedek are Melek (king) and Zadok (righteous). Therefore, within the name Melchizedek we can see that Yeshua will be king over Zadok. In Ezekiel’s temple the decedents of Pinchas will serve the messianic king as priests.

When we don’t try to force the to fit into our doctrine we get a clearer picture of HaShem’s plan. In Pinchas we can see how HaShem plans to honor both the descendants of Pinchas and the Melchizedekian priesthood. HaShem’s way is not to make Yeshua a priest by conforming Him into a Levite. HaShem’s way is to transform the Levites into a priesthood that serves Yeshua. Therefore HaShem’s plan is as Philippians 2:10 states;

“at the name of Yeshua every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth” Clearly HaShem is capable of fulfilling His promise to both priesthoods without diminishing the calling He has placed on either."


By Rabbi Yaakov benYosef – ABOUT-.org

[alon]

Numbers 25:10-13 (CJB) Adonai said to Moshe, “Pinchas the son of El‘azar, the son of Aharon the cohen, has deflected my anger from the people of Isra’el by being as zealous as I am, so that I didn’t destroy them in my own zeal. Therefore say, ‘I am giving him my covenant of shalom, making a covenant with him and his descendants after him that the office of cohen will be theirs forever.’ This is because he was zealous on behalf of his God and made atonement for the people of Isra’el.”

Pinchas (Phineas) zealotry during the rebellion of Baal-Peor led him to thrust a spear through a Hebrew tribal prince and a Midianite princess who were caught in the act, in brazen defiance of God’s law and total disregard for his people. Because of this, God stopped the plague and granted Pinchas a covenant of peace. He also made Pinchas a part of the priestly line; a high honor since he was otherwise not qualified to be a priest. He was already born when the promise was made to Aaron and his sons. Also his father was married to an outsider (Ex 6:25).

Another census is done, and instructions on how to divide the land is given. The petition of Zolophidad’s daughters is used to address female inheritance of property when the father dies leaving no sons (ch 27 vss 1-11). This would be important in the coming conquest of the land as some fighting men may fall leaving their families with no male heirs, and Israel is a patriarchal society. God does grant females the rights of inheritance, and a complete heirarcy of inheritance is established. Underlying this entire passage is the fact that property rights in Israel are divinely granted and may not be transferred to another tribe, nor especially to an outsider.

Numbers 27:12-14 (CJB) Adonai said to Moshe, “Climb this mountain in the ‘Avarim Range, and look out at the land which I have given the people of Isra’el. After you have seen it, you too will be gathered to your people, just as Aharon your brother was gathered; because in the Tzin Desert, when the community was disputing with me, you rebelled against my order to uphold my holiness by means of the water, with them looking on.” (This was M’rivat-Kadesh Spring, in the Tzin Desert.)

Moses is about to die, however Deu ch 4 suggests his death was postponed. He did see, but did not enter the Promised Land.

A key to the success of Israel’s campaign to conquer the land would be the appointment of a competent, Godly leader. National leadership, unlike the priesthood, was not hereditary. Numbers 27:15-17 (CJB) Moshe said to Adonai, “Let Adonai, God of the spirits of all human beings, appoint a man to be over the community, to go out and come in ahead of them, to lead them out and bring them in, so that Adonai’s community will not be like sheep without a shepherd.”

Yehoshua is chosen by God to fill this role. In order to avoid challenges, his investiture is witnessed by the priest Eleazar and the entire community (ch 27 vss 20-23). Moshe is commanded to “Lay your hands upon him” (vs 18) and “invest him with some of your authority” (vs.20). Some of Moshe’s prophetic ability may or may not have been transferred to Yehoshua, however he could not communicate directly with God as Moshe did. He still had to consult the Urim and the Thummim, so any prophetic abilities would be limited at best. Contrast 2 Kings 2:9-15 where power was transferred from Elijah to Elisha. An interesting side note, the rite of laying on of hands is employed for both persons and animals (Lev 16:21 & Num 8:10).

In ch 28 & 29, Parshat Pinchas lists the sacrifices of all the moedem, as well as some regulations for these appointed times. It also expands on the Levitical calendar (Lev 23) by adding daily and new moon rituals. This is a guide for a settled community, which is why it is given just before the Hebrew nation goes in and conquers HaEretz.

The new moon of the seventh month (Nissan) is like a Shabbat of new moon celebrations. In the Exodus 23:16 covenant, the seventh month is the transition between the end of one agricultural year and the beginning of the next. Jewish tradition adopted Rosh HaShanah, the new moon of the seventh month as the start of the new year. We have two new year’s reflected in the Bible; one in the spring (Nisan) and one in the fall (Tishri). So the Jewish calendar is a hybrid of sorts.

Dan C

edit: for excerpted commentary on Lev 25 & 26, Pinchas zealotry, see theloveofgod.proboards.com/thread/3663/numbers-25-parshahs-balak-pinhas

[alon]

God Honors Truth in Action (Condensed from the Messianic Prophecy Bible Project):

Pinchas was not yet an elder in the community, yet he was the only one who took action against the sin that was destroying his own people.

Others had witnessed Zimri’s open sin, but they apparently did nothing (even Moses, Aaron and his sons). When we stand by and wait for leaders or friends to confront sin or the slanderous attacks against Israel in front of us, the sin or the lie just grows and infects more people. As it is said—a little leaven leavens the whole lump. We are not to remain silent and passive. Sometimes God is calling us to help correct a problem by speaking life into the situation—either by speaking or writing the truth. Living lives filled with truth is a powerful weapon against sin, especially lies.

As well, speaking blessings and words of life over those who are courageously speaking truth can bring anointing and power to them that they may not have had access to before. It builds them up in strength and helps them to persevere in the storm that comes to all who stand for righteousness. You may be slandered for speaking life, but “even if you should suffer for what is right, you are blessed. Do not fear their threats; do not be frightened. But in your hearts revere Messiah as Lord. ... For it is better, if it is God’s will, to suffer for doing good than for doing evil.” (1 Peter 3:14–15, 17)

In addition to speaking the truth about Israel, we can speak the truth that brings eternal life by sharing the truth about who Yeshua HaMashiach is with those who do not yet know Him. “Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in the Messiah may be ashamed of their slander.” (1 Peter 3:15–16)

I think right now, both on this forum and here where I live I, and we are witnessing some of "the storm that comes to all who stand for righteousness." We need to all stand firm in our faith and build each other up. We need to not be discouraged by the small size of our group here. We've all seen many new people come on here and fall away: some hopefully just to lurk, and hopefully the others don't fall away from their faith (just from talking to us about it). But it is still discouraging to see them go. Perhaps I in my role as moderator am more aware of this, as I sign people on and see how few actually hang in and participate. I also see many more who don't even respond to our short inquiry for vetting purposes and so are never approved to post. Some of us are also feeling the effects of that storm. But I am encouraged by the quality of the faith I see here in people who do seek God's truth. And who speak it; who do care for and encourage each other. We all need to have that boldness in our own communities as well.

Dan C

[alon]

Numbers 25:10-13 (ESV) And the Lord said to Moses, “Phinehas the son of Eleazar, son of Aaron the priest, has turned back my wrath from the people of Israel, in that he was jealous with my jealousy among them, so that I did not consume the people of Israel in my jealousy. Therefore say, ‘Behold, I give to him my covenant of peace, and it shall be to him and to his descendants after him the covenant of a perpetual priesthood, because he was jealous for his God and made atonement for the people of Israel.’”

So Pinchas could be called a "peacemaker." He made peace between HaShem and Yisro'el, and was given a covenant of peace with HaShem for his efforts. But what did he do to turn away the wrath of Godf rom his people? Driven by zeal, he killed two people defiling the sanctity of both the Mishkan and of God's people by indulging in a forbidden sexual relationship. But how does this square up with the following:

Matthew 5:9 (ESV) “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.

Most of us were taught in Sunday School that a peacemaker is someone like a mediator who talks two sides through to an agreement; someone who brokers compromise. Really? God has to compromise with us? Certainly we don't think of a peacemaker as a violent person. I mean, didn't Yeshua in that same message say:

Matthew 5:5 (ESV) “Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.

The word "meek" here is from the Greek "praus" which might better have been translated as "humble." One does not have to be meek to be humble; and the worst peacemakers are pacifists. Sometimes drastic measures are called for in order to insure or to restore peace. And here is the worst part of our again improper indoctrination as to the meanings of these statements by Yeshua- we have for the last @150 yrs. compromised with evil, failing to stand up for the truth, to the point our government is no longer recognizable as based on "Christian" values. Israel is attacked in our press, and Jews are attacked on US college campuses, and there is no outrage; yet these very people and institutions, often funded by our taxes, pander to and support Muslim extremists with little opposition.

I think it is time to set the record straight: Yeshua was not a pacifist, He never compromised with evil but opposed it at every turn, and God does not compromise with evil nor does His word ever teach that we should either!

Dan C

[garrett]

Nor was Yeshua a communist (when he told the rich young man to sell all his possessions). I have heard this before....taken out of context.

[jimmie]

alon,

Chamberlin was a “peace declarer”. He said “Peace. Peace.” When there was no peace. Churchill was a “peace maker.”

As I have said a thousand ere a hundred times, “words can and often do have more than one meaning.”

Meek 1. Showing patience and humility; gentle.
2. Easily imposed upon; submissive.

The work “meek” comes from the Old Norse and means “soft”. “A soft answer turns away wrath.” and is balanced by “An Angry Countenance Drives Away Backbiters.”

Humble 1. Marked by meekness or modesty in behavior, attitude, or spirit.
2. Showing deferential or submissive respect.
3. Of low rank or station.

Humble comes from the Latin “humus” or “ground”.

I fail to see why you condemn the translators for using “meek” and propose “humble” instead. They both carry essentially the same meanings. Both using the other in its’ definition.

garrett,

Christ and his disciples were communal. They had a common bag for their money and bought all their needs from that bag. The early church, too was communal or held all of their possessions in common. This served them well, when the Romans sieged Jerusalem. The Plymouth Pilgrims were communal for a time also. The problem with the Marxism brand of communist is “force.” They compel everyone to join the commune. Whereas Christian communes are voluntary. i.e. The rich young ruler could join or not. He chose not to join and went his own way.

[alon]

Aug 5, 2015 14:36:18 GMT -8 jimmie said:

... As I have said a thousand ere a hundred times, “words can and often do have more than one meaning.”

Meek 1. Showing patience and humility; gentle.
2. Easily imposed upon; submissive.

The work “meek” comes from the Old Norse and means “soft”. “A soft answer turns away wrath.” and is balanced by “An Angry Countenance Drives Away Backbiters.”

Humble 1. Marked by meekness or modesty in behavior, attitude, or spirit.
2. Showing deferential or submissive respect.
3. Of low rank or station.

Humble comes from the Latin “humus” or “ground”.

I fail to see why you condemn the translators for using “meek” and propose “humble” instead. They both carry essentially the same meanings. Both using the other in its’ definition. ...

Your point is well taken, and was in fact considered when I wrote the post. Allow me to give you the relevant phrases:

Aug 5, 2015 4:33:20 GMT -8 alon said:

... Most of us were taught in Sunday School that a peacemaker is someone like a mediator who talks two sides through to an agreement; someone who brokers compromise. ... The word "meek" here is from the Greek "praus" which might better have been translated as "humble." ... And here is the worst part of our again improper indoctrination as to the meanings of these statements by Yeshua- ...

When the KJV was translated, those words may have been understood as your definitions say. And the definitions are still correct; however in modern usage the words have taken on decidedly slanted connotations. That is why I didn't say it absolutely should have been translated one way; just that modern translators, knowing how these words are perceived could have done a better job. I'll say this here and now, that looking at most of what is being done to Bible translations now I suspect many of these translators intentionally pick the words to mislead, and many more just don't care.

The point is part of the reason we are in the mess we are in is people are being misled by false doctrine in churches everywhere, in part due to inept translators. And what I condemn the translators for is being at worst liars, and at best intellectually lazy!

Dan C

[alon]

Aug 5, 2015 12:22:38 GMT -8 garrett said:

Nor was Yeshua a communist (when he told the rich young man to sell all his possessions). I have heard this before....taken out of context.

It's truly amazing what people can come up with. jimmie is correct again with his explanationof a communism. Used broadly, the term can describe many ideologies. However again I'd say the modern connotation is of the Red Menace, slaves to the system and forced redistribution of wealth- you know, like in Washington DC!

Dan C

[jimmie]

Aug 5, 2015 16:06:47 GMT -8 alon said:

When the KJV was translated, those words may have been understood as your definitions say. And the definitions are still correct; however in modern usage the words have taken on decidedly slanted connotations. That is why I didn't say it absolutely should have been translated one way; just that modern translators, knowing how these words are perceived could have done a better job. I'll say this here and now, that looking at most of what is being done to Bible translations now I suspect many of these translators intentionally pick the words to mislead, and many more just don't care.

The point is part of the reason we are in the mess we are in is people are being misled by false doctrine in churches everywhere, in part due to inept translators. And what I condemn the translators for is being at worst liars, and at best intellectually lazy!

Dan C

[/font][/quote]


Carl Reed, an early mentor of mine, once told me, “Doctrines are made of ideas. Ideas of sentences. And sentences of words. Allow your enemy to define your words, you will lose.” Thus I refuse to use words as applied in modern usage with their slanted connotations, when reading scripture. As a judge is supposed to determine the original intent of the writer(s) of a contract/constitution, so too am I supposed to determine the original intent of the translator(s)/writer(s) of scripture.

The point is part of the reason we are in the mess we are in with people being misled by false doctrine in churches everywhere, is in part due to inept readers/listeners. And what I condemn readers/listeners for is being at worst liars, and at best intellectually lazy!
If we put the two parts together, maybe we will come up with “the blind leading the blind.”

[alon]

Aug 6, 2015 6:00:38 GMT -8 jimmie said:

Aug 5, 2015 16:06:47 GMT -8 alon said:

When the KJV was translated, those words may have been understood as your definitions say. And the definitions are still correct; however in modern usage the words have taken on decidedly slanted connotations. That is why I didn't say it absolutely should have been translated one way; just that modern translators, knowing how these words are perceived could have done a better job. I'll say this here and now, that looking at most of what is being done to Bible translations now I suspect many of these translators intentionally pick the words to mislead, and many more just don't care.

The point is part of the reason we are in the mess we are in is people are being misled by false doctrine in churches everywhere, in part due to inept translators. And what I condemn the translators for is being at worst liars, and at best intellectually lazy!

Dan C


Carl Reed, an early mentor of mine, once told me, “Doctrines are made of ideas. Ideas of sentences. And sentences of words. Allow your enemy to define your words, you will lose.” Thus I refuse to use words as applied in modern usage with their slanted connotations, when reading scripture. As a judge is supposed to determine the original intent of the writer(s) of a contract/constitution, so too am I supposed to determine the original intent of the translator(s)/writer(s) of scripture.

You are more intellectually astute than the average Christian in a SS class, or for that matter the teacher or even the pastor. We already have the blind leading the blind, that's the point. The fact is that the vast majority of Christians don't want to even be told about the proper interpretation, let alone bother to figure it out themselves. So like it or not, we are stuck with their simply applying the contemporary connotation to the terms. And why not? They absolutely ignore context as well; literary, cultural and historical. They don't want the truth, they want their comfortable, empty religion. I suppose we cold blame the masses, for after all, the interpreters are simply giving them the product they demand. "Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:" Mat 7:13.

When it comes to doctrine, I prefer to get it straight rather than follow the masses into the easy way.

Dan C

(BTW, the term "way" is better translated as path or road nowadays ... )

[alon]

Aug 5, 2015 4:33:20 GMT -8 alon said:

Numbers 25:10-13 (ESV) And the Lord said to Moses, “Phinehas the son of Eleazar, son of Aaron the priest, has turned back my wrath from the people of Israel, in that he was jealous with my jealousy among them, so that I did not consume the people of Israel in my jealousy. Therefore say, ‘Behold, I give to him my covenant of peace, and it shall be to him and to his descendants after him the covenant of a perpetual priesthood, because he was jealous for his God and made atonement for the people of Israel.’”

So Pinchas could be called a "peacemaker." He made peace between HaShem and Yisro'el, and was given a covenant of peace with HaShem for his efforts. But what did he do to turn away the wrath of Godf rom his people? Driven by zeal, he killed two people defiling the sanctity of both the Mishkan and of God's people by indulging in a forbidden sexual relationship. But how does this square up with the following:

Matthew 5:9 (ESV) “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.

Most of us were taught in Sunday School that a peacemaker is someone like a mediator who talks two sides through to an agreement; someone who brokers compromise. Really? God has to compromise with us? Certainly we don't think of a peacemaker as a violent person. I mean, didn't Yeshua in that same message say:

Matthew 5:5 (ESV) “Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.

The word "meek" here is from the Greek "praus" which might better have been translated as "humble." One does not have to be meek to be humble; and the worst peacemakers are pacifists. Sometimes drastic measures are called for in order to insure or to restore peace. And here is the worst part of our again improper indoctrination as to the meanings of these statements by Yeshua- we have for the last @150 yrs. compromised with evil, failing to stand up for the truth, to the point our government is no longer recognizable as based on "Christian" values. Israel is attacked in our press, and Jews are attacked on US college campuses, and there is no outrage; yet these very people and institutions, often funded by our taxes, pander to and support Muslim extremists with little opposition.

I think it is time to set the record straight: Yeshua was not a pacifist, He never compromised with evil but opposed it at every turn, and God does not compromise with evil nor does His word ever teach that we should either!

Dan C

OK, getting past the semantics argument for the moment, let's get back to the real point of the post, which is that God and Sir Winston Churchill have a different idea of what a peacemaker might be. Sir Winnie wanted to use diplomacy to stop Hitler early on. But thee came a time when diplomacy was off the table and force was called for. God calls us to repentance, but there comes a time and circumstance when His people must act, sometimes with violence and others just taking a stand against evil. Others we must be the ones who bring the message of repentance to those doing evil. But nowhere are we called to sit on the sidelines.

Dan C

PS: I know that comparing Churchill to God is like Gen. Montgomery who addressed his troops once with a quote from the Bible: "And the Lord said (and I quite agree) ...".