KORAH, DATHAN, AND ABIRAM
Numbers 16; Numbers 17
BEHIND what appears in the history, there must have been many
movements of thought and causes of discontent which gradually led to
the events we now consider. Of the revolts against Moses which
occurred in the wilderness, this was the most widely organised and
involved the most serious danger. But we can only conjecture in what
way it arose, how it was related to previous incidents and
tendencies of popular feeling. It is difficult to understand the
report, in which Korah appears at one time closely associated with
Dathan and Abiram, at other times quite apart from them as a leader
of disaffection. According to Wellhausen and others, three
narratives are combined in the text. But without going so far in the
way of analysis we clearly trace two lines of revolt: one against
Moses as leader; the other against the Aaronic priesthood. The two
risings may have been distinct; we shall however deal with them as
simultaneous and more or less combined. A great deal is left
unexplained, and we must be guided by the belief that the narrative
of the whole book has a certain coherency, and that facts previously
recorded must have had their bearing on those now to be examined.
The principal leader of revolt was Korah, son of Izhar, a Levite of
the family of Kohath; and with him were associated two hundred and
fifty "princes of the congregation, called to the assembly, men of
renown," some of them presumably belonging to each of the tribes as
is shown incidentally in Num 27:3. The complaint of this
company-evidently representing an opinion widely held-was that Moses
and Aaron took too much upon them in reserving to themselves the
whole arrangement and control of the ritual. The two hundred and
fifty, who according to the law had no right to use censers, were so
far in opposition to the Aaronic priesthood that they were provided
with the means of offering incense. They claimed for themselves on
behalf of the whole congregation, whom they declared to be holy, the
highest function of priests. With Korah were specially identified a
number of Levites who, not content with being separated to do the
service of the tabernacle, demanded the higher sacerdotal office. It
might seem from Num 16:10-11, that all the two hundred and fifty
were Levites; but this is precluded by the earlier statement that
they were princes of the congregation, called to the assembly. So
far as we can gather, the tribe of Levi did not supply princes, "men
of renown," in this sense. While Moses deals with Korah and his
company, Dathan, Abiram, and On, who belong to the tribe of Reuben,
stand in the background with their grievance. Invited to state it,
they complain that Moses has not only brought the congregation out
of a land "flowing with milk and honey," to kill them in the
wilderness, failing to give them the inheritance he promised; but he
has made himself a prince over the host, determining everything
without consulting the heads of the tribes. They ask if he means "to
put out the eyes of these men,"-that is, to blind them to the real
purpose he has in view, whatever it is, or to make them his slaves
after the Babylonian fashion, by actually boring out the eyes of
each tenth man, perhaps. The two hundred and fifty are called by
Moses to bring their censers and the incense and fire they have been
using, that Jehovah may signify whether He chooses to be served by
them as priests, or by Aaron. The offering of incense over, the
decree against the whole host as concerned in this revolt is made
known, and Moses intercedes for the people. Then the Voice commands
that all the people shall separate themselves from the "tabernacle"
of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, apparently as if some tent of worship
had been erected in rivalry of the true tabernacle. Dathan and
Abiram are not at the "tabernacle," but at some little distance, in
tents of their own. The people remove from the "tabernacle of Korah,
Dathan, and Abiram," and on the terrible invocation of judgment
pronounced by Moses, the ground cleaves asunder and all the men that
appertain unto Korah go down alive into the pit. Afterwards, it is
said, "fire came forth from the Lord and devoured the two hundred
and fifty men that offered the incense." "The men that appertained
unto Korah" may be the presumptuous Levites, most closely identified
with his revolt. But the two hundred and fifty consumed by the fire
are not said to have been swallowed by the cleaving earth; their
censers are taken up "out of the burning," as devoted or sacred, and
beaten into plates for a covering of the altar.
On the morrow the whole congregation, even more disaffected than
before, is in a state of tumult. The cry is raised that Moses and
Aaron "have killed the people of Jehovah." Forthwith a plague, the
sign of Divine anger, breaks out. Atonement is made by Aaron, who
runs quickly with his burning censer "into the midst of the
assembly," and "stands between the dead and the living." But
fourteen thousand seven hundred die before the plague is stayed. And
the position of Aaron as the acknowledged priest of Jehovah is still
further confirmed. Rods or twigs are taken, one for each tribe, all
the tribes having been implicated in the revolt; and these rods are
laid up in the tent of meeting. When a day has passed, the rod of
Aaron for the tribe of Levi is found to have put forth buds and
borne almonds. The close of the whole series of events is an
exclamation of amazed anxiety by all the people: "Behold, we perish,
we are undone, we are all undone. Every one that cometh near unto
the tabernacle of Jehovah dieth: shalt we perish all of us?"
Now throughout the narrative, although other issues are involved,
there can be no question that the main design is the confirmation of
the Aaronic priesthood. What happened conveyed a warning of most
extraordinary severity against any attempt to interfere with the
sacerdotal order as established. And this we can understand. But it
becomes a question why a revolt of Reubenites against Moses was
connected with that of Korah against the sole priesthood of the
Aaronic house. We have also to consider how it came about that
princes out of all the tribes were to be found provided with
censers, which they were apparently in the habit of using to burn
incense to Jehovah. There is a Levitical revolt; there is an
assumption by men in each tribe of priestly dignity; and there is a
protest by men representing the tribe of Reuben against the
dictatorship of Moses. In what way might these different movements
arise and combine in a crisis that almost wrecked the fortunes of
Israel?
The explanation supplied by Wellhausen on the basis of his main
theory is exceedingly laboured, at some points improbable, at others
defective. According to the Jehovistic tradition, he says, the
rebellion proceeds from the Reubenites, and is directed against
Moses as leader and judge of the people. The historical basis of
this is dimly discerned to be the fall of Reuben from its old place
at the head of the brother tribes. Out of this story, says
Wellhausen, at some time or other not specified, "when the people of
the congregation, i.e., of the Church, have once come on the scene,"
there arises a second version. The author of the agitation is now
Korah, a prince of the tribe of Judah, and he rebels not only
against Moses but against Moses and Aaron as representing the
priesthood. "The jealousy of the secular grandees is now directed
against the class of hereditary priests instead of against the
extraordinary influence on the community of a heaven-sent hero."
Then there is a third addition which "belongs likewise to the
Priestly Code, but not to its original contents." In this, Korah the
prince of the tribe of Judah is replaced by another Korah, head of a
"postexilic Levitical family"; and "the contest between clergy and
aristocracy is transformed into a domestic strife between the higher
and inferior clergy which was no doubt raging in the time of the
narrator." All this is supposed to be a natural and easy explanation
of what would otherwise be an "insoluble enigma." We ask, however,
at what period any family of Judah would be likely to claim the
priesthood, and at what post-exilic period there was "no doubt" a
strife between the higher and inferior clergy. Nor is there any
account here of the two hundred and fifty princes of the
congregation, with their partially developed ritual antagonistic to
that of the tabernacle.
We have seen that according to the narrative of Numbers seventy
elders of the tribes were appointed to aid Moses in bearing the
heavy burden of administration, and were endowed with the gift of
prophecy that they might the more impressively wield authority in
the host. In the first instance, these men might be zealous helpers
of Moses, but they proved, like the rest, angry critics of his
leadership when the spies returned with their evil report. They were
included with the other men of the tribes in the doom of the forty
years’ wandering, and might easily become movers of sedition. When
the ark was stationed permanently at Kadesh, and the tribes spread
themselves after the manner of shepherds over a wide range of the
surrounding district, we can easily see that the authority of the
seventy would increase in proportion to the need for direction felt
in the different groups to which they belonged. Many of the
scattered companies too were so far from the tabernacle that they
might desire a worship of their own, and the original priestly
function of the heads of tribes, if it had lapsed, might in this way
be revived. Although there were no altars, yet with censers and
incense one of the highest rites of worship might be observed.
Again, the period of inaction must have been galling to many who
conceived themselves quite capable of making a successful assault on
the inhabitants of Canaan, or otherwise securing a settled place of
abode for Israel. And the tribe of Reuben, first by birthright, and
apparently one of the strongest, would take the lead in a movement
to set aside the authority of Moses. We have also to keep in mind
that though Moses had pressed the Kenizzites to join the march and
relied on their fidelity, the presence in the camp of one like Hobab,
who was an equal not a vassal of Moses, must have been a continual
incentive to disaffection. He and his troops had their own notions,
we may believe, as to the delay of forty years, and would very
likely deny its necessity. They would also have their own cultus,
and religiously, as well as in other ways, show an independence
which encouraged revolt.
Once more, as to the Levites, it might seem unfair to them that
Aaron and his two sons should have a position so much higher than
theirs. They had to do many offices in connection with sacrifice,
and other parts of the holy service. On them, indeed, fell the
burden of the duties, and the ambitious might expect to force their
way into the higher office of the priesthood, at a time when
rebellion against authority was coming to a head. We may suppose
that Korah and his company of Levites, acting partly for themselves,
partly in concert with the two hundred and fifty who had already
assumed the right to burn incense, agreed to make their demand in
the first instance, that as Levites they should be admitted priests.
This would prepare the way for the princes of the tribes to claim
sacerdotal rights according to the old clan idea. And at the same
time, the priority of Reuben would be another point, insistence upon
which would strike at the power of Moses. If the princes of Reuben
had gone so far as to erect a "tabernacle" or mishcan for their
worship, that may have been, for the occasion, made the headquarters
of revolt, perhaps because Reuben happened at the time to be nearest
the encampment of the Levites.
A widespread rebellion, an organised rebellion, not homogeneous, but
with many elements in it tending to utter confusion, is what we see.
Suppose it to have succeeded, the unity of worship would have been
destroyed completely. Each tribe with its own cultus would have gone
its own way so far as religion was concerned. In a very short time
there would have been as many debased cults as there were wandering
companies. Then the claim of autonomy, if not of right to lead the
tribes, made on behalf of Reuben, involved a further danger. Moses
had not only the sagacity but the inspiration which ought to have
commanded obedience. The princes of Reuben had neither. Whether all
under the lead of Reuben or each tribe led by its own princes, the
Israelites would have travelled to disaster. Futile attempts at
conquest, strife or alliance with neighbouring peoples, internal
dissension, would have worn the tribes piecemeal away. The
dictatorship of Moses, the Aaronic priesthood, and the unity of
worship stood or fell together. One of the three removed, the others
would have given way. But the revolutionary spirit, springing out of
ambition and a disaffection for which there was no excuse, was blind
to consequences. And the stern suppression of this revolt, at
whatever cost, was absolutely needful if there was to be any future
for Israel.
It has been supposed that we have in this rebellion of Korah the
first example of ecclesiastical dissension, and that the punishment
is a warning to all who presumptuously intrude into the priestly
office. Laymen take the censer; and the fire of the Lord burns them
up. So, let not laymen, at any time in the Church’s history, venture
to touch the sacred mysteries. If ritual and sacramentarian miracle
were the heart of religion; if there could be no worship of God and
no salvation for men now unless through a consecrated priesthood,
this might be said. But the old covenant, with its symbols and
shadows, has been superseded. We have another censer now, another
tabernacle, another way which has been consecrated for ever by the
sacrifice of Christ, a way into the holiest of all open to every
believer. Our unity does not depend on the priesthood of men, but on
the universal and eternal priesthood of Christ. The co-operation of
Aaron as priest was needful to Moses, not that his power might be
maintained for his own sake, but that he might have authority over
the host for Israel’s sake. It was not the dignity of an order or of
a man that was at stake, but the very existence of religion and of
the nation. This bond snapped at any point, the tribes would have
been scattered and lost.
A leader of men, standing above them for their temporal interests,
can rarely take upon him to be the instrument of administering the
penalty of their sins. What king, for instance, ever invoked an
interdict on his own people, or in his own right of judging for God
condemned them to pay a tax to the Church, because they had done
what was morally wrong? Rulers generally have regarded disobedience
to themselves as the only crime it was worth their while to punish.
When Moses stood against the faithless spirit of the Israelites and
issued orders by way of punishing that bad spirit, he certainly put
his authority to a tremendous test. Without a sure ground of
confidence in Divine support, he would have been foolhardy in the
extreme. And we are not surprised that the coalition against him
represented many causes of discontent. Under his administration the
long sojourn in the desert had been decreed, and a whole generation
deprived of what they held their right-a settlement in Canaan. He
appeared to be tyrannising over the tribes; and proud Reubenites
sought to put an end to his rule. The priesthood was his creation,
and seemed to be made exclusive simply that through Aaron he might
have a firmer hold of the people’s liberties. Why was the old
prerogative of the headmen in religious-matters taken from them?
They would reclaim their rights. Neither Levi nor Reuben should be
denied its priestly autonomy any longer. In the whole rebellion
there was one spirit, but there were also divided counsels; and
Moses showed his wisdom by taking the revolt not as a single
movement, but part by part.
First he met the Levites, with Korah at their head, professing great
zeal for the principle that all the congregation were holy, every
one of them. A claim made on that ground could not be disproved by
argument, perhaps, although the holiness of the congregation was
evidently an ideal, not a fact. Jehovah Himself would have to
decide. Yet Moses remonstrated in a way that was fitted to move the
Levites, and perhaps did touch some of them. They had been honoured
by God in having a certain holy office assigned to them. Were they
to renounce it in joining a revolt which would make the very
priesthood they desired common to all the tribes? From Jehovah
Himself the Levites had their commission. It was against Jehovah
they were fighting; and how could they speed? They spoke of Aaron
and his dignity. But what was Aaron? Only a servant of God and of
the people, a man who personally assumed no great airs. By this
appeal some would seem to have been detached from the rebellion, for
in Num 26:9-11, when the judgment of Korah and his company is
referred to, it is added, "Notwithstanding the children of Korah
died not." From 1 Chronicles 6 we learn that in the line of Korah’s
descendants appeared certain makers and leaders of sacred song,
Heman among them, one of David’s singers, to whom Psalms 88, is
ascribed.
With the Reubenites Moses deals in the next place, taking their
cause of discontent by itself. Already one of the three Reubenite
chiefs had withdrawn, and Dathan and Abiram stood by themselves.
Refusing to obey the call of Moses to a conference, they stated
their grievance roughly by the mouth of a messenger; and Moses could
only with indignation express before God his blamelessness in regard
to them: "I have not taken one ass from them, neither have I hurt
one of them." Neither for his own enrichment, nor in personal
ambition had he acted. Could they maintain, did the people think,
that the present revolt was equally disinterested? Under cover of
opposition to tyranny, are they not desiring to play the part of
tyrants and aggrandise themselves at the expense of the people?
It is singular that not a word is said in special condemnation of
the two hundred and fifty because they were in possession of censers
and incense. May it be the case that the complete reservation of the
high-priestly duties to the house of Aaron had not as yet taken
effect, that it was a purpose rather than a fact? May it not further
be the case that the rebellion partly took form and ripened because
an order had been given withdrawing the use of censers from the
headmen of the tribes? If there had as yet been a certain temporary
allowance of the tribal priesthood and ritual, we should not have to
ask how incense and censers were in the hands of the two hundred and
fifty, and why the brass of their vessels was held to be sacred and
put to holy use.
The prayer of Moses in which he interceded for the people, Num 16:22
is marked by an expression of singular breadth, "O God, the God of
the spirits of all flesh." The men, misled on the fleshly side by
appetite (Num 16:13), and shrinking from pain, were against God. But
their spirits were in His hand. Would He not move their spirits,
redeem and save them? Would He not look on the hearts of all and
distinguish the guilty from the innocent, the more rebellious from
the less? One man had sinned, but would God burst out on the whole
congregation? The form of the intercession is abrupt, crude. Even
Moses with all his justice and all his pity could not be more just,
more compassionate, than Jehovah. The purpose of destruction was not
as. the leader thought it to be.
Regarding the judgments, that of the earthquake and that of the
fire, we are too remote in time to form any proper conception of
what they were, how they were inflicted. "Moses," says Lange,
"appears as a man whose wonderful presentiment becomes a miraculous
prophecy by the Spirit of revelation." But this is not sufficient.
There was more than a presentiment. Moses knew what was coming, knew
that where the rebels stood the earth would open, the consuming fire
burn. The plague, on the other hand, which next day spread rapidly
among the excited people and threatened to destroy them, was not
foreseen. It came as if straight from the hand of Divine wrath. But
it afforded an opportunity for Aaron to prove his power with God and
his courage. Carrying the sacred fire into the midst of the infected
people he became the means of their deliverance. As he waved his
censer, and its fumes went up to heaven, faith in Jehovah and in
Aaron as the true priest of Jehovah was revived in the hearts of
men. Their spirits came again under the healing power of that
symbolism which had lost its virtue in common use, and was now
associated in a grave crisis with an appeal to Him who smites and
heals, who kills and makes alive.
It has been maintained by some that the closing sentences of chapter
17 should follow chapter 16 with which they appear to be closely
connected, the incident of the budding of Aaron’s rod seeming to
call rather for a festal celebration than a lament. The theory of
the Book of Numbers we have seen reason to adopt would account for
the introduction of the fresh episode, simply because it relates to
the priesthood and tends to confirm the Aaronites in exclusive
dignity. The symbolic test of the claim raised by the tribes
corresponds closely to the signs that were used by some of the
prophets, such as the girdle laid up by the river Euphrates, and the
basket of summer fruits. The rod on which Aaron’s name was written
was of almond, a tree for which Syria was famous. Like the sloe it
sends forth blossoms before the leaves; and the unique way in which
this twig showed its living vigour as compared with the others was a
token of the choice of Levi to serve and Aaron to minister in the
holiest office before Jehovah.
The whole circumstances, and the closing cry of the people, leave
the impression of a grave difficulty found in establishing the
hierarchy and. centralising the worship. It was a necessity-shall we
call it a sad necessity?-that the men of the tribes should be
deprived of direct access to the sanctuary and the oracle. Earthly,
disobedient, and far from trustful in God, they could not be
allowed, even the hereditary chiefs among them, to offer sacrifices.
The ideas of the Divine holiness embodied in the Mosaic law were so
far in advance of the common thought of Israel, that the old order
had to be superseded by one fitted to promote the spiritual
education of the people, and prepare them for a time when there
shall be "on the bells of the horses, HOLY UNTO THE LORD; and every
pot in Judah shall be holy unto the Lord of hosts, and all they that
sacrifice shall come and take of them and seethe therein." The
institution of the Aaronic priesthood was a step of progress
indispensable to the security of religion and the brotherhood of the
tribes in that high sense for which they were made a nation. But it
was at the same time a confession that Israel was not spiritual, was
not the holy congregation Korah declared it to be. The greater was
the pity that afterwards in the day of Israel’s opportunity, when
Christ came to lead the whole.people into the spiritual liberty and
grace for which prophets had longed, the priestly system was held
tenaciously as the pride of the nation. When the law of ritual and
sacrifice and priestly mediation should have been left behind as no
longer necessary because the Messiah had come, the way of higher
life was opened in vain. Sacerdotalism held its place with full
consent of those who guided affairs. Israel as a nation was blinded,
and its day shone in vain.
Of all priesthoods as corporate bodies, however estimable, zealous,
and spiritually-minded individual members of them may be, must it
not be said that their existence is a sad necessity? They may be
educative. A sacerdotal system now may, like that of the Mosaic law,
be a tutor to bring men to Christ. Realising that, those who hold
office under it may bring help to men not yet fit for liberty. But
priestly dominance is no perpetual rule in any church, certainly not
in the Kingdom of God. The freedom with which Christ makes men free
is the goal. The highest duty a priest can fulfil is to prepare men
for that liberty; and as soon as he can he should discharge them for
the enjoyment of it. To find in episodes like those of Korah’s
revolt and its suppression a rule applicable to modern religious
affairs is too great an anachronism. For whatever right
sacerdotalism now has is purely of the Church’s tolerance, in the
measure not of Divine right, but of the need of uninstructed men. To
the spiritual, to those who know, the priestly system with its
symbols and authoritative claim is but an interference with
privilege and duty.
Can any Aaron now make an atonement for a mass of people, or even in
virtue of his office apply to them the atonement made by Christ? How
does his absolution help a soul that knows Christ the Redeemer as
every Christian soul ought to know Him? The great fault of
priesthoods always is, that having once gained power, they endeavour
to retain it and extend it, making greater claims the longer they
exist. Affirming that they speak for the Church, they endeavour to
control the voice of the Church. Affirming that they speak for
Christ, they deny or minimise His great gift of liberty. Freedom of
thought and reason was to Cardinal Newman, for example, the cause of
all deplorable heresies and infidelities, of a divided Church and a
ruined world. The candid priest of our day is found making his claim
as largely as ever, and then virtually explaining it away. Should
not the vain attempt to hold by Judaic institutions cease? And
although the Church of Christ early made the mistake of harking back
to Mosaism, should not confession now be made that priesthood of the
exclusive kind is out of date, that every believer may perform the
highest functions of the consecrated life?
The Divine choice of Aaron, his confirmation in high religious
office by the budding of the almond twig as well as by the
acceptance of his intercession, have their parallels now. The
realities of one age become symbols for another.
Like the whole ritual of Israel, these particular incidents may be
turned to Christian use by way of illustration. But not with regard
to the prerogative of any arch-hierarch. The availing intercession
is that of Christ, the sole headship, over the tribes of men is that
which He has gained by Divine courage, love, and sacrifice. Among
those who believe there is equal dependence on the work of Christ.
When we come to intercession which they make for each other, it is
of value in consideration not of office but of faith. "The effectual
fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much." It is as
"righteous" men, humble men, not as priests they prevail. The
sacraments are efficacious, "not from any virtue in them or in him
that administers them," but through faith, by the energy of the
omnipresent Spirit.
Yet there are men chosen to special duty, whose almond twigs bud and
blossom and become their sceptres. Appointment and ordination are
our expedients; grace is given by God in a higher line of calling
and endowment. While there are blessings pronounced that fall upon
the ear or gratify the sensibility, theirs reach the soul. For them
the world has need to thank God. They keep religion alive, and make
it bourgeon and yield the new fruits for which the generations
hunger. They are new branches of the Living Vine. Of them it has
often to be said, as of the Lord Himself, "The stone which the
builders rejected the same has become head of the corner; this is
the Lord’s doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes."
|