By Angus Harley
We read in the OT, in Psalm 106:31 (105:31, LXX), that God reckoned righteousness to Phinehas the priest. Israel had provoked God by their godless deeds, so God was angry with them and a plague broke out (Num.25). It is then we read:
30 Then Phinehas stood up and interposed,
And so the plague was stayed.
31 And it was reckoned to him for righteousness,
To all generations forever.
What should we make of this teaching? Is it saying that the justification of God is by meritorious works, as Roman Catholicism states? Or, is the Psalmist teaching that God’s justification is by a combo of faith and works? Or is there some other solution? I think there is.
Phinehas was already justified by faith
It is readily apparent that Phinehas is not acting in such a manner to attain salvation or eternal life, as if his act were in some way contributing to him being salvifically justified by God from sin. For, Phinehas is acting as a faithful Israelite, one who is zealous for Israel and for Israel’s God, Yahweh. He is a true believer, a man of God, and he acts as such. In the language of justification by faith, we can say that Phinehas was already once-and-for-all justified as a sinner by his faith in the promise of God (cf., Gen.15:6; Rom.4:1-8).
Phinehas was not accumulating merit
It follows, then, that any act of zeal for God’s cause performed by Phinehas was not a meritorious action that built up spiritual credit before God, as if contributing to a potential salvation or justification, whether presently or on Judgment Day itself.
Yet, this belief is challenged by Roman Catholics and others, who point out that Phinehas was justified on the basis of what he did. He merited that divine evaluation. Moreover, he was rewarded, a reward that was equally gained by his actions. So we are told.
Even if we allow for the loosest use of the term ‘merit’ in Phinehas’ case, it still would not amount to the Roman Catholic dogma of building up religious and spiritual credit with God to try and guarantee one’s supposed justification before him on Judgment Day. As the term ‘merit’ is theologically loaded, we should avoid it entirely. Phinehas was behaving as any true slave of Yahweh ought to: he fulfilled the will of God by bringing to an end Israel’s idolatry and adulterous actions.
Nor was the reward he received based on merit. It was simply a case that God was well-pleased with Phinehas’ act, so he blessed him with a reward. Phinehas did not go out to merit this, to work to achieve a ‘pay out’. He was a slave graciously blessed by his master, not an employee earning a bonus. Catholicism is using ‘reward’ in a similar manner to which we see in Western movies where there is a reward for bringing in an outlaw. The cowboy has to go and earn his reward in that case. Not so here with Phinehas. He’s not earning or achieving a reward. It is an entirely gracious act on God’s part. For God did not have to give to Phinehas any reward, yet, such is the abundant goodness of God that he does reward his faithful slaves.
From this point we explore what is meant by saying that God reckoned righteousness to Phinehas’ act.
Not saying enough
A main Evangelical reading understands Psalm 106:30-31 to indicate the traditional doctrine of justification by faith. Phinehas was a man already justified by faith, and this justification that came by faith alone was manifested in and by his zealous action. Justifying faith revealed itself in action. The act itself, however, was not the basis for God’s pronouncement of justification, for the sinner is justified only by faith.
Strength
As already maintained, there is no doubt that Phinehas was indeed justified by faith. Nor is there any reason to question the theology that justifying faith will always reveal itself in works. All this is undoubtedly implied in the narrative of Numbers 25.
Works are reckoned
That being said, Numbers 25 and Psalm 106:30-31 do not specifically draw our attention to Phinehas’ faith. The texts do not state, for example, ‘Phinehas believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness.’ Instead, it is Phinehas’ act of zeal that is considered righteousness on the simple and straightforward basis of the act itself. There is no need to delimit this righteousness-event to mere faith.
It is evident, then, that for Phinehas we could say that he was justified by faith, as a theological truth, and that God reckoned Phinehas’ act as righteousness. These dual forms of justification are not alien to Evangelical theology, or even to the more traditional Reformed theology. Speaking of the difference between Abraham as justified by faith and Phinehas’ justifying act, John Murray writes:
“…There need be no question but it was the zealous act of Phinehas that was reckoned to him for righteousness….And the word “reckoned” here, as in the Hebrew, means that it was placed to his account, it was imputed to him….”[1]
John Gill has this to say:
“Not for his justifying righteousness before God; for all the works of righteousness done by the best of men cannot justify them before him, much less a single action: but his executing judgment in the manner he did, or slaying the above two persons, was esteemed a righteous action by the Lord himself; who upon it caused the plague to cease, and likewise gave to Phinehas the covenant of an everlasting priesthood, and to his posterity….”[2]
And John Calvin concludes:
“It remains, therefore, that we affirm, that the work of Phinehas was imputed to him for righteousness, in the same way as God imputes the works of the faithful to them for righteousness, not in consequence of any intrinsic merit which they possess, but of his own free and unmerited grace.”[3]
By delimiting Psalm 106:31 merely to justifying faith, of the Pauline type, some thereby do not say enough, for the text is teaching that Phinehas’ deed was the basis for the pronouncement of righteousness.
Saying too much
Another Evangelical position, which is more modern in outlook, conceives of Phinehas’ action as part of a concept of justification that blends together faith and works. To be clear, these theologians routinely disavow the Roman Catholic dogma of meritorious faith and work. The Evangelical view we are concerned with here believes that the sinner is justified by faith once-and-for-all and that this is non-conditional. It is accompanied by another stage/type of justification: God’s final justification of believers on Judgment Day, a justification that is based on faith producing godly works. This latter form of justification is conditional, for faith must reveal itself in works for the ‘Christian’ to be delivered. It implies that the justification of God given on Judgment Day is somehow projected into the present every time a Christian as a believer performs a righteous work, as in the case, for example, of Phinehas.
Strengths
This view has the clear strength of placing the emphasis, in the case of Phinehas, upon his act of righteousness. It does not delimit the text to faith as the link to righteousness. It also correctly acknowledges that the sinner is justified by faith, and that justifying faith reveals itself in works.
Present justification
However, the above Evangelical reading goes too far, saying too much. Let us start again with the obvious. Once more, Phinehas’ faith is not the focus, even though it is implied. It is his deed that is the exclusive focus. Secondly, not a single word is said or implied about some future form of justification, never mind a so-called form of justification on Judgement Day. We are told in Numbers 25:12-13 that as a reward God made a perpetual priestly covenant of peace with Phinehas and his priestly progeny. Just as Yahweh blessed Phinehas with a perpetual priestly reward, so God pronounced that Phinehas’ deed was reckoned as righteousness for all generations (Psa.106:31-32). It is as plain as day, therefore, that the form of justification spoken of was not only immediate, but the implication is that its value lasted eternally.
No ‘greater justification’
Therefore, there is no combo here of two forms of justification: one of faith complemented by one of works. These two justifications are not to be combined into one ‘greater justification’, or effectively act as one greater justification. They both must be distinguished and kept within their own theological limits. In that light, Murray goes on to contrast Abraham to Phinehas:
“We must, however, recognize the difference between the two cases (Gen.15:6 and Psalm 106:31). In the case of Phinehas it is an act of zeal on his part; it is a deed. He was credited with the devotion which his faith in God produced- righteousness in the ethical and religious sense. But that which was reckoned to Abraham is of a very different sort. In Paul’s interpretation and application of Genesis 15:6 this becomes quite patently. Paul could not have appealed to Psalm 106:31 in this connection without violating his whole argument. For if he has appealed to Psalm 106:31 in the matter of justification, the justification of the ungodly (cf. vs. 5), then the case of Phinehas would have provided an inherent contradiction and would have demonstrated justification by a righteous and zealous act.”[4] [italics his]
Blurring the lines with Catholicism
There are, most unfortunately, bigger problems with the above Evangelical model. It makes our salvation/justification conditional. Even if there is such a thing as a form of justification by God on Judgment Day, this particular Evangelical position puts a bold question mark- arising from conditionality- on the believer’s salvation/justification, a question that can only be answered by the divine assessment given on Judgment Day itself. For if one’s salvation is conditional, even if only pertaining to Judgment Day itself, then the door is open for failure, for the believer might not meet ‘the conditions’. I acknowledge that this particular Evangelical model rejects any form of merit. Even so, the basic structure of conditionality brings with it the inevitable fruits of a lack of assurance and a doctrine of justification wholly hinging on Judgment Day itself. This, in logical terms, make Judgment Day ‘justification’ the control of justification by faith that happens in the believer’s experience, for all things pertaining to God’s judgment eventually hinge on Judgment Day itself and its divine judgment of works (faith-works). It is regrettably the case, that this Evangelical model bears some of the prominent features of the Roman Catholic doctrine of meritorious justification on Judgment Day. We can safely conclude, therefore, that the above Evangelical position says far too much.
What about that similarity in language?
The issue
It is evident to all that the language of Psalm 106:31 is nigh identical to Genesis 15:6. Therein we read that Abraham’s faith, not an act of zeal, was reckoned as righteousness. It is partly on this basis that attempts are made to argue that Phinehas’ justification was solely by faith- justifying faith revealing itself by works- or, there is the second Evangelical position we looked at, in which faith and works combined together as two forms of justification to, in effect, form one greater concept of justification. What should we do with this similarity in language? How ought we to interpret it?
Two different subjects
We must reassert Murray’s argument that we are dealing with two different subjects of God’s judicial assessment: one of works, the other of faith. Of the similarity in language, he has this to say:
“Though then the formula in Genesis 15:6 is similar to that of Psalm 106:31, the subjects with which they deal are diverse. Genesis 15:6 is dealing with justification, as Paul shows; Psalm 106:31 with good works which were the fruit of faith. This distinction must be kept in view in the interpretation of Genesis 15:6….”[5]
Two justifications
The reader might have noticed that Murray is a bit hesitant to refer to what happened to Phinehas as a form of ‘justification’, preferring to attach that term to the Pauline view of justification by faith. This is perhaps because of the tradition of associating ‘justification’ as a concept with ‘justification by faith alone’. It is also because Murray is writing in the context of the Pauline doctrine of justification, which Murray attributes exclusively to faith and in opposition to works.
Nonetheless, it is not wrong to summarize Psalm 106:31 as referring to Phinehas’ ‘justification’, if by that is meant merely that God reckoned as righteousness his zealous act. We are not talking here about ‘justification by faith’, or a ‘greater justification’, only that God’s judicial evaluation extends to the works of believers (Jam.2:14-26) (see ahead).
Implied connection
What Murray does not discuss is how it is that the same language of justification, or of reckoned righteousness, is used in two different contexts, to apply to two different subjects: faith and works. Given what we do know about justification from an NT perspective (James 2:21-24; Rom.4:1-3), and also due our understanding of the OT (see ahead), it is highly unlikely that Moses and the Psalmist just happened to use the same language, or that the Psalmist merely borrowed it for he thought it was useful in some way. I think it safer to conclude that there is an implied connection, and that the Psalmist was using the ‘justification’ language of Genesis to imply some form of theological continuity between Abraham and his circumstances and Phinehas and his.
Divine ‘gold standard’
Behind this similarity is what I call the divine ‘gold standard’. Both ‘justifications’ have in common that they are: 1) objective to man and to his actions, and are not attributed to the believer or his action; 2) a divine act, therefore, personal to God himself; and, 3) the divine-judicial weighing up of the believer’s faith and action.
Never about merit
Consequently, in the cases of both Abraham and Phinehas, it could never have been about merit, since the ‘gold standard’ of righteousness was divine in itself, for it stood outside of the actions and faith of mere man- whether ungodly or godly. The faith of Abraham marked him out as one who had taken hold of God’s righteousness to come via his promise,[6] just as Phinehas’ zeal marked him out as one who had executed God’s objective righteousness in his plan for Israel (see ahead).
Not the acts in themselves
Another profound implication of the ‘gold standard’ of God’s righteousness as being objective to, and outside of, Abraham and Phinehas, is that neither man is justified on the basis of the mere act itself- whether the act of faith, or the zeal to kill the two adulterers. For Abraham, it was not the act of faith considered as a form of doing right, or of faithfulness, that was reckoned as righteousness. Faith considered as an act was not in itself the thing being measured. It was what faith took hold of, namely, the promise of a son and heir, a seed (Gen.15). God’s righteousness was found in the form of the promised son and heir, in the seed (see Rom.3:21-27; Rom.4). Abraham’s faith took hold of God’s righteousness in this promised son/Son, for it was God’s righteousness that was revealed in his Son, and which was then appropriated by faith.[7] Phinehas, likewise, was not divinely weighed according to his zealous act considered in itself, as to itself. For as with Abraham, it was what the act signified that was reckoned as righteousness. In the case of Phinehas, he had killed the two adulterers, the two idolaters, and by this intervention had removed the plague and God’s anger from Israel. He had acted to propitiate God’s wrath and to save Israel. It was due to this propitiatory act that God said of it that it was righteousness. It was not the mere act valued in itself as a religious expression that was of import; it was because it restored Israel to God through the shedding of blood and the removal of evil. This is to say that, there was a divine and spiritual ideal, or goal, that stood above, and outside of, Phinehas’ act, toward which his deed was specifically aimed. This was God’s own ‘righteous weighing scale’, as it were, his ‘gold standard.’
Doing righteousness
I would suggest to the reader that it is precisely this theology that lies behind the bible’s multiple ways of referring to ‘doing righteousness’. It is not about the acts considered in themselves, for themselves, but what the acts aimed to fulfill- a ‘gold standard’ and measurement that was divine and outside of believers themselves, even of their actions, and at which their godly works as believers aimed.
This is not the model of the Mosaic Law and its innate standard of keeping the Law perfectly, nor some ‘Christian’ version of a similar perfect-obedience model. Such models are antithetical to God’s Gospel grace, and, most unfortunately, promote man’s flesh and self-righteousness. The Law and its obedience are based on the act itself, on its innate worthiness.
Works are ‘righteousness’, rather, for they reflect the superior and objective will of the divine Lord and his plan of salvific living for believers. If we measure the Christian’s actions as ethical acts taken in themselves, we then fall into the trap of making no difference between these acts and some such similar ethical deeds by the ungodly. Or, if we insist in the intrinsically ‘spiritual’ nature of these acts as making them worthy, we fall into a similar hole, because we remove from their doing the objective (divine) purpose and goal at which they aim, and which they reflect.
Fulfill all righteousness
We see the above model in action in the NT, in the Gospel of Matthew 3:15, wherein Jesus tells John the Baptist that John must baptize him to ” “fulfill all righteousness” “. It was not about the mere ethical doing, nor something that was generically ‘spiritual’. Instead, the focus was God’s salvation and the Father’s holy will for his Son and for John himself, a will centering on the cross and its propitiation. Righteousness was concerned with God’s salvific plan and its enactment, in other words.
Shadow
In the light of this teaching, we can appreciate more the shadow-nature of Phinehas’ action. Just as Phinehas as a spiritual priest (not a Levite!) propitiated Yahweh’s wrath by the death of the two adulterers, so God the priest gave up his Son as a propitiatory sacrifice- the one who knew no sin becoming sin for us- thereby removing God’s anger against sinners. Therefore, the obedience of an OT saint was intrinsically reflective, and a shadow, of the superior salvific righteousness of the Messianic Son.
Mosaic Covenant: a frame of reference
It is becoming more and more popular to frame justification in terms of the covenant. In the case of Phinehas, we are informed that his obedience was in performance of the Mosaic Covenant and its holy order.
Mosaic Covenant: frame of reference
Certainly, we can concede that Phinehas was a believer under the authority of the Mosaic Covenant, and that he was acting within that general framework. Yet, I would submit to the reader that the Mosaic Covenant itself is possibly used only as a kind of frame of reference. To which commandment of Moses do we go to vindicate Phinehas’ act? He acted independently, outside of the ‘due procedures’ of the Mosaic legislation itself. Which commandment can we appeal to that specifically allows for his action? Most will appeal to the commandments to love God and not to commit idolatry or adultery. Aren’t they, however, expounded upon in the body of the book of the Law itself? Which is to say that the Law of Moses was its own self-contained standard of measurement. It would seem, then, the Law considered in itself was simply not adequate to form the basis of God’s ongoing and live acts of righteousness in real time. There was a plan of righteousness that was outside of the Law of Moses and its covenant, to which the Mosaic Law and its many commandments somewhat pointed to.
Psalm 51’s heavenly cult
I think we, from an OT perspective, see a similar model in Psalm 51 and its Davidic confession of sin. For David’s entire psalm works on the basis that true forgiveness is rooted in something greater than the doing of the Mosaic Law itself, and issues from God’s heavenly, cultic-like form of forgiveness and mercy. For, it is apparent in that psalm that David thinks of the Mosaic Law and its sacrificial language as a frame of reference for the ‘real deal’ of heavenly and true spiritual forgiveness.[8]
Levitical frame of reference
Another clue is found in the fact that Phinehas is rewarded with his very own covenant, which is extended to his priestly progeny. Once again, textually, we are moving beyond the explicit content of the Mosaic Covenant and its numerous and inflexible commandments. The divine reward is, to be sure, enacted with implied reference to the general framework of the Mosaic, Levitical priestly system. Nonetheless, the blessing itself is not something within the system itself, but is outside of it.
Shadow of heavenly covenant
Of course, we NCTers can readily see in Phinehas action and its divine blessing of an eternal priestly progeny a shadow of Jesus Christ and his royal priesthood. Phinehas was acting as a spiritual priest whose actions denoted a heavenly covenant, propitiation, and eternal priesthood (see Gal.4:24-26; book of Hebrews).
Findings
This article has argued that Phinehas was justified by God as to his zealous act of killing the two adulterers. Let me put in bullet points the main findings.
- ‘Justified’ here has the sense of being divinely ‘reckoned as righteous’.
- There is not a reference to ‘justification by faith alone’, though justification by faith alone is immovable and must not be tampered with as a doctrine.
- The entire focus is on Phinehas’ act of zeal, for it is reckoned as righteousness by God.
- This contextual evidence also rules out the combo of faith and zeal as the basis for God’s assessment of justification.
- Phinehas was already a believer when his zealous work was reckoned as righteousness. He was therefore already ‘justified by faith alone’.
- Consequently, Scripture does use the language of justification- to be reckoned as righteousness- of both faith’s interaction and of godly zeal or works (Jam.2:24-26).
- These are two distinct forms of righteousness and of justification, not a combo. We can say theologically that Phinehas was once-for-all justified by faith when he first came to faith. And we can add that this justifying faith revealed itself in godly works. Even so, Numbers 25 and Psalm 103:30-31 are concerned with the godly work in and of itself, not its grounding in faith. It is the work that is considered righteousness by God.
- Believers are not ‘saved’ therefore by a combo of those two justifications. Justification by faith applies to believers as those who are ungodly, who received the righteousness of Christ alone as their eternal covering. By contrast, to be justified in a godly work is a reference to God’s judicial approbation and approval of the one who is godly and zealous for God’s salvific righteousness. One justification aims at forgiveness and reconciliation with God; the other is concerned with the expression of godly zeal in the working out of God’s divine plan of salvation.
- God’s ‘gold standard’ of righteousness always stands outside of, objective to, both faith and godly works. Neither faith, nor works, are measured in themselves as a form of godliness. It is only as a godly act is done in pursuit of the greater salvific will of God’s righteousness, his divine plan of redemption, that God reckons this deed as righteousness. There is not intrinsic spiritual or moral value in the mere act considered in itself.
- In this way, Phinehas’ zealous act, which was reckoned as righteousness, shadowed the New Covenant and its heavenly, cultic, and divine offering of Jesus the propitiatory sacrifice. By his propitiatory death an eternal priestly and heavenly progeny was won.
[1] John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997), 70.
[2] John Gill. comm. Psalm 106:31, Biblehub,
[3] John Calvin, comm. Psalm 106:31, https://biblehub.com/commentaries/calvin/psalms/106.htm
[4] Murray, Romans, 70.
[5] Murray, Romans, Ibid.
[6] See Angus Harley, “Romans 4: were Calvin and Luther right?”, All Things New Covenant, September 18, 2025, https://allthingsnewcovenant.com/2025/09/18/romans-4-were-calvin-and-luther-right/.
[7] Harley, “Romans 4: were Calvin and Luther right?”.
[8] Angus Harley, “Psalm 51: aa model for understanding the OT Law”, All Things New Covenant https://allthingsnewcovenant.com/2023/02/12/psalm-51-a-model-for-understanding-the-ot-law/.
All Things New Covenant 