A verse by verse commentary on Numbers 16 dealing with Korah, Dathan and Abiram, and the rebellion of Korah that led to the death of 14,700 people,

1. NUMBERS 16 COMMENTARY
EDITED BY GLENN PEASE
Korah, Dathan and Abiram
1 Korah son of Izhar, the son of Kohath, the son
of Levi, and certain Reubenites—Dathan and
Abiram, sons of Eliab, and On son of Peleth—
became insolent[a]
BARNES, "Amram and Izhar were brothers (compare Exo_6:18), and thus Korah,
the “son,” i. e. descendant of Izhar, was connected by distant cousinship with Moses and
Aaron. Though being a Kohathite, he was of that division of the Levites which had the
most honorable charge, yet as Elizaphan, who had been made “chief of the families of
the Kohathites” Num_3:30, belonged to the youngest branch descended from Uzziel
Num_3:27, Korah probably regarded himself as injured; and therefore took the lead in
this rebellion. Of the others, On is not again mentioned. He probably withdrew from the
conspiracy. Dathan, Abiram, and On were Reubenites; and were probably discontented
because the birthright had been taken away from their ancestor Gen_49:3, and with it
the primacy of their own tribe among the tribes of Israel. The Reubenites encamped near
to the Kohathites (compare Num_2:25 and plan), and thus the two families were
conveniently situated for taking counsel together. One pretext of the insurrection
probably was to assert the rights of primogeniture - on the part of the Reubenites against
Moses, on the part of Korah against the appointment of Uzziel.
CLARKE, "Now Korah - took men - Had not these been the most brutish of
men, could they have possibly so soon forgotten the signal displeasure of God
manifested against them so lately for their rebellion. The word men is not in the original;
and the verb ‫ויקח‬ vaiyikkach, and he took, is not in the plural but the singular, hence it
cannot be applied to the act of all these chiefs. In every part of the Scripture where this
rebellion is referred to it is attributed to Korah, (see Num_26:3, and Jud_1:11),
therefore the verb here belongs to him, and the whole verse should be translated thus: -
Now Korah, son of Yitsar son of Kohath, son of Levi, He Took even Dathan and Abiram,
the sons of Eliab, and On, son of Peleth, Son Of Reuben; and they rose up, etc. This
makes a very regular and consistent sense, and spares all the learned labor of Father
1

2. Houbigant, who translates ‫יקח‬ yikkach, by rebellionem fecerunt, they rebelled, which
scarcely any rule of criticism can ever justify. Instead of ‫ראובן‬ ‫בני‬ beney Reuben, Sons of
Reuben, some MSS. have ‫בן‬ ben, Son, in the singular; this reading, supported by the
Septuagint and the Samaritan text, I have followed in the above translation. But as Eliab
and Peleth were both Reubenites, the common reading, Sons, may be safely followed.
GILL, "Now Korah, the son of Izhar, the son of Kohath, the son of Levi,.... A
great grandson of Levi's, and own cousin to Moses and Aaron, being brothers children;
for Amram the father of Moses and Aaron, and Izhar the father of Korah, were own
brothers, both of them the sons of Kohath, and Amram the eldest, and Izhar the next,
Exo_6:16; this man is mentioned first, being the contriver, and plotter, and ringleader of
the following sedition, and which is called "the gainsaying of Core", Jud_1:11; when this
was made is not certain; Aben Ezra thinks this affair happened in the wilderness of
Sinai, when the firstborn were exchanged, and the Levites were separated for holy
service, Num_3:1; but, according to the Targum of Jonathan, it was after the law
concerning the fringes was given, which it here follows, and was on that account; for it
says, that Korah took his coat, which was all blue, and that the men with him rose up,
and in the face of Moses taught the rite concerning the blue ribbon; when Moses
declared he had it from God, that the fringe should be of white, and one thread of blue
should be in it; but Korah and his company made their coats and fringes all of blue,
which the Lord commanded not: but what Korah is said to take is either himself, or men,
or both, and not clothes, as follows:
and Dathan and Abiram, the sons of Eliab, and On the son of Peleth,
sons of Reuben, took men; which men are described in Num_16:2, even princes of
the assembly, &c. or he, Korah, took himself, as Ben Melech, or divided himself, as
Onkelos, separated himself from the congregation, and set himself at the head of a party
he gathered together; and the "vau" or "and" before "Dathan" may be additional or
superfluous, as Chaskuni observes, and so Abendana; and then the sense is, that Korah
took Dathan, Abiram and On, apart by themselves, and entered into a consultation and
confederacy with them against Moses and Aaron, with whom he was offended on
account of the priesthood being bestowed on the latter by the former; and these men he
associated to him, being the sons of Reuben, who would the rather listen to him, and
join with him, because the right of the firstborn was taken from them, and the camp of
Judah was placed before them; and with these men he could more easily commune,
because the camp of Reuben and the Kohathites lay on the same side of the tabernacle,
Num_2:10; Eliab, the father of Dathan and Abiram, was the son of Pallu, the second son
of Reuben, Num_26:5; but as for On, no mention is made of him elsewhere, nor any
more in this place; it is thought he separated from his company after he had heard what
Moses said to them; and the Rabbins say, his wife delivered him out of their hands, as
Abendana observes.
HENRY 1-2, "Here is, I. An account of the rebels, who and what they were, not, as
formerly, the mixed multitude and the dregs of the people, who are therefore never
named, but men of distinction and quality, that made a figure. Korah was the ring-
2

3. leader: he formed and headed the faction; therefore it is called the gainsaying of Korah,
Jud_1:11. He was cousin-german to Moses, they were brothers' children, yet the
nearness of the relation could not restrain him from being insolent and rude to Moses.
Think it not strange if a man's foes be those of his own house. With him joined Dathan
and Abiram, chief men of the tribe of Reuben, the eldest son of Jacob. Probably Korah
was disgusted both at the preferment of Aaron to the priesthood and the constituting of
Elizaphan to the head of the Kohathites (Num_3:30); and perhaps the Reubenites were
angry that the tribe of Judah had the first post of honour in the camp. On is mentioned
(Num_16:1) as one of the heads of the faction, but never after in the whole story, either
because, as some think, he repented and left them, or because he did not make himself
so remarkable as Dathan and Abiram did. The Kohathites encamped on the same side of
the tabernacle that the Reubenites did, which perhaps gave Korah an opportunity of
drawing them in, whence the Jews say, Woe to the wicked man, and woe to his
neighbour, who is in danger of being infected by him. And, these being themselves men
of renown, they seduced into the conspiracy two hundred and fifty princes of the
assembly (Num_16:2); probably they were first-born, or at least heads of families, who,
before the elevation of Aaron, had themselves ministered in holy things. Note, The pride,
ambition, and emulation, of great men, have always been the occasion of a great deal of
mischief both in churches and states. God by his grace make great men humble, and so
give peace in our time, O Lord! Famous men, and men of renown, as these are described
to be, were the great sinners of the old world, Gen_6:4. The fame and renown which
they had did not content them; they were high, but would be higher, and thus the
famous men became infamous.
JAMISON, "Num_16:1-30. The rebellion of Korah.
Now Korah, the son of Izhar — Izhar, brother of Amram (Exo_6:18), was the
second son of Kohath, and for some reason unrecorded he had been supplanted by a
descendant of the fourth son of Kohath, who was appointed prince or chief of the
Kohathites (Num_3:30). Discontent with the preferment over him of a younger relative
was probably the originating cause of this seditious movement on the part of Korah.
Dathan and Abiram, ... and On — These were confederate leaders in the rebellion,
but On seems to have afterwards withdrawn from the conspiracy [compare Num_16:12,
Num_16:24, Num_16:25, Num_16:27; Num_26:9; Deu_11:6; Psa_106:17].
took men — The latter mentioned individuals, being all sons of Reuben, the eldest of
Jacob’s family, had been stimulated to this insurrection on the pretext that Moses had,
by an arbitrary arrangement, taken away the right of primogeniture, which had vested
the hereditary dignity of the priesthood in the first-born of every family, with a view of
transferring the hereditary exercise of the sacred functions to a particular branch of his
own house; and that this gross instance of partiality to his own relations, to the
permanent detriment of others, was a sufficient ground for refusing allegiance to his
government. In addition to this grievance, another cause of jealousy and dissatisfaction
that rankled in the breasts of the Reubenites was the advancement of Judah to the
leadership among the tribes. These malcontents had been incited by the artful
representations of Korah (Jud_1:11), with whom the position of their camp on the south
side afforded them facilities of frequent intercourse. In addition to his feeling of personal
wrongs, Korah participated in their desire (if he did not originate the attempt) to recover
their lost rights of primogeniture. When the conspiracy was ripe, they openly and boldly
declared its object, and at the head of two hundred fifty princes, charged Moses with an
3

4. ambitious and unwarrantable usurpation of authority, especially in the appropriation of
the priesthood, for they disputed the claim of Aaron also to pre-eminence [Num_16:3].
K&D, "Num_16:1-2
The authors of the rebellion were Korah the Levite, a descendant of the Kohathite
Izhar, who was a brother of Amram, an ancestor (not the father) of Aaron and Moses
(see at Exo_6:18), and three Reubenites, viz., Dathan and Abiram, sons of Eliab, of the
Reubenitish family of Pallu (Num_26:8-9), and On, the son of Peleth, a Reubenite, not
mentioned again. The last of these (On) is not referred to again in the further course of
this event, either because he played altogether a subordinate part in the affair, or
because he had drawn back before the conspiracy came to a head. The persons named
took (‫ח‬ ַ‫קּ‬ִ‫,)י‬ i.e., gained over to their plan, or persuaded to join them, 250 distinguished
men of the other tribes, and rose up with them against Moses and Aaron. On the
construction ‫ָקוּמוּ‬‫יּ‬ַ‫ו‬...‫ה‬ ַ‫קּ‬ִ‫ַיּ‬‫ו‬ (Num_16:1 and Num_16:2), Gesenius correctly observes in his
Thesaurus (p. 760), “There is an anakolouthon rather than an ellipsis, and not merely a
copyist's error, in these words, 'and Korah,...and Dathan and Abiram, took and rose up
against Moses with 250 men,' for they took 250 men, and rose up with them against
Moses,” etc. He also points to the analogous construction in 2Sa_18:18. Consequently
there is no necessity either to force a meaning upon ‫ח‬ ַ‫ק‬ָ‫,ל‬ which is altogether foreign to
it, or to attempt an emendation of the text. “They rose up before Moses:” this does not
mean, “they stood up in front of his tent,” as Knobel explains it, for the purpose of
bringing Num_16:2 into contradiction with Num_16:3, but they created an uproar
before his eyes; and with this the expression in Num_16:3, “and they gathered
themselves together against Moses and Aaron,” may be very simply and easily
combined. The 250 men of the children of Israel who joined the rebels no doubt
belonged to the other tribes, as is indirectly implied in the statement in Num_27:3, that
Zelophehad the Manassite was not in the company of Korah. These men were “princes of
the congregation,” i.e., heads of the tribes, or of large divisions of the tribes, “called men
of the congregation,” i.e., members of the council of the nation which administered the
affairs of the congregation (cf. Num_1:16), “men of name” (‫ם‬ ֵ‫שׁ‬ ‫י‬ֵ‫שׁ‬ְ‫נ‬ ַ‫,א‬ see Gen_6:4). The
leader was Korah; and the rebels are called in consequence “Korah's company” (Num_
16:5, Num_16:6; Num_26:9; Num_27:3). He laid claim to the high-priesthood, or at
least to an equality with Aaron (Num_16:17). Among his associates were the Reubenites,
Dathan and Abiram, who, no doubt, were unable to get over the fact that the birthright
had been taken away from their ancestor, and with it the headship of the house of Israel
(i.e., of the whole nation). Apparently their present intention was to seize upon the
government of the nation under a self-elected high priest, and to force Moses and Aaron
out of the post assigned to them by God, - that is to say, to overthrow the constitution
which God had given to His people.
CALVIN, "1.Now Korah, the son of Izhar. The impious conspiracy is here
related of a few men, but these of the highest rank, whose object was to subvert
and destroy the divinely-appointed priesthood. They make their attack, indeed,
upon Moses, and accuse him of ruling unjustly; for thus it is that turbulent
persons are carried away without reason or discrimination; but, the only cause
4

5. why they are set against him is because they suppose him to be the originator of
the priesthood, as we easily collect from his reply. For he does not command
them to stand forth, in order that they may decide respecting the political
government or chieftainship, but that it may be made plain whether God
acknowledges them as priests; nor does he reproach the Levites with anything
but that, not content with their own lot, they have an unreasonable ambition to
obtain the honor of the high-priesthood. It was jealousy, then, that instigated
Korah and his companions to set on foot first a quarrel, and then a tumult;
respecting the priesthood, because they were indignant that the hope of
attaining that honor was taken away from themselves and their posterity for
ever. Thus there never was any more deadly or abominable plague in the
Church of God, than ambition; inasmuch as it cannot be that those who seek
for pre-eminence should range themselves beneath God’s yoke. Hence arises
the dissolution of legitimate authority, when each one neglects the duties of his
position, and aims at his own private advancement.
Now, this conspiracy was the more formidable, because the sedition did not
arise from the dregs of the people, but amongst the princes themselves, who
were of high dignity, and held in the greatest estimation. For although there
were only four leaders of the faction, there is but little room to doubt but that
the purpose of the two hundred and fifty was the same; for they would never
have eagerly embarked in a grave and invidious contest for the sake of four
men; but the fact was, that all unholy covetousness misled them all, for there
was none of them who did not expect some prize as a reward of victory. They
not only, then, dissemble their mental disease, but conceal it under an
honorable pretext; for they pretend that they are instigated by zeal for the
public good, and that their object is the defense of liberty. For, inasmuch as
ambition is crafty, it is never destitute of some specious excuse: thus, whilst
schismatics are influenced by nothing but pride to disturb the peace of the
Church, they always invent plausible motives, whereby they may conciliate in
some degree the favor of the ignorant, or even of the unstable and worthless.
We must, therefore, cautiously weigh the designs of those who seek to make
innovations, and to overthrow a state of things which might be endured; for
thorough investigation will make it plain that; they aim at something besides
what they pretend. By the, fact of their so speedily engaging such a multitude
of persons in their party, we perceive how disposed man’s nature is to the most
unpromising and unreasonable revolts in the world. Four worthless men
wickedly endeavor to overthrow Moses and Aaron; and straightway two
hundred and fifty persons are ready to follow them, not of the populace, but
chiefs of the tribes, whose reputation might dazzle the eyes of the simple. Hence
we must be the more cautious, lest any bugbears (larvae) should deceive us into
making rash innovations.
5

6. With respect to the wording of the passage, some refer the verb “he took,” (86)
to the other conspirators, as if it were said that Korah stirred them up. Others
explain it that he instigated himself, and hurried himself onwards by his evil
passions. I do not, however, assent to either signification, but take it for “he set
to work” (aggressus est.) When it is afterwards said that “they rose up before
Moses,” some understand the words according to their simple meaning, others
in a bad sense; and undoubtedly here the expression “before the face of,” is
equivalent to “against,” and thus indicates the wantonness of their aggression.
There is more difficulty in the words ‫מועד‬ ‫,קראי‬ (87) kerei mogned. All, however,
almost with one consent, translate them “great in the congregation;” but since the
word ‫,קריים‬keriira, generally signifies persons called or invited, and ‫,מועד‬ mogned,
not only an assembly, but also an appointed time, or convention, it seems probable
to me that these princes and men of high name are stated to have been present,
because they were called according to appointment: as if Moses had said that they
were called at a fixed time, or by agreement. For neither do I see any reason why,
after the word ‫,עדה‬ (88) gnedah, ‫מועד‬ , mogned, should be used with the same
meaning.
COKE, "Numbers 16:1. Now Korah, &c.— What we render took men, is, in the
original, ‫יקח‬ ikkach, which Houbigant renders rebellionem fecerunt, rebelled; an
interpretation of the word which he justifies in his note, to which we refer, and for
which he has the countenance of some of the ancient versions. He wholly
disapproves of Calmet's proposal to real, Now Korah, &c.—took Dathan and
Abiram; and, indeed, the Hebrew is strongly against such a version. For a full
account of this transaction, we refer the reader to Josephus, lib. iv. c. 2, &c.
Stillingfleet's Sermons, serm. 8: and our Reflections at the end of the next chapter.
Bishop Usher supposes this to have happened within the six last months of the
second year after the departure from Egypt, and probably at Kadesh Barnea.
COFFMAN, "The whole of these two chapters, except the last short paragraph of
Numbers 17, deals with the events related to the Rebellion of Korah, and even those
two verses record the congregation's reaction to the events just related. Also, the
Jewish Bible ends chapter 16 at verse 36, transferring the last fifteen verses to
Numbers 17. Therefore, it seems advisable to think of these two chapters (Numbers
16-17) as one.
As is usually the case where Biblical narrative is concerned, the current crop of
commentaries still wallow in all the allegations and uncertainties of the radical
criticism of the first half of this century. Their objections to this account of Korah's
rebellion makes out that there were really two different rebellions, one led by
Dathan and Abiram which was essentially an objection to Moses' government, and
another led by Korah which sought to broaden the priesthood to allow others than
the sons of Aaron to participate. According to critical theory, the two accounts were
interwoven and combined. Of course, all of this could be true, if Moses himself was
6

7. the one who combined the two rebellions as a composite in his account of it, a thing
not impossible at all, especially if the events happened simultaneously or almost so.
This is not what the critical fraternity have in mind however. They would make the
Korah account a FABRICATED narrative woven into the Numbers record for the
purpose of strengthening the exclusive right of the priesthood as belonging to Aaron
only, something, which according to them took place centuries after Moses.
We cannot believe that anything like this occurred. The rebellion here was one in
every sense of the word, and like all rebellions, there were diverse elements
cooperating in the prosecution of it. To find two accounts here is merely pedantic
doodling. The proposition that "P" wrote part of the story (the priestly source) is
frustrated by the fact that the sections they assign to "P" have inferences and
assumptions that are traceable to all of the other "alleged sources," also by the fact
that no two scholars agree on which passages belong either to "JE," or to "P"; and
Marsh even split "J" into subordinate parts, that maneuver springing from the very
obvious truth that the alleged "JE" is in no sense unified.[1] Furthermore, both the
Samaritan and Septuagint (LXX) versions support the narrative as it occurs here.[2]
How do they get all that?
(1) They simply delete certain passages that will not fit their theories.
(2) They misinterpret some passages.
(3) They "emend" (change the meaning of) others.
(4) Their "a priori" assumption is that there is perhaps no truth whatever in the
Biblical narrative.
Note the following snide denial by Wade. "What portion, if any, is actual fact it is
impossible to say."[3] Of course, such a remark carries the meaning that the author
of the statement believed that there is very probably no truth whatever in the
Biblical account, and that, in case some of it might be true, it is impossible for him to
imagine what it could be!
It is long past the time that Christians should stop allowing the Devil to explain the
Word of God for them! That was the primeval mistake of our mother Eve.
That there are difficulties with this chapter is true, the reason being that: (1) there
could have been damage to the text in some places; (2) that many details are
omitted, the knowledge of which would remove all ambiguities; and (3) that people
cannot always discern God's reasons for what he did.
What people really have trouble with in the Bible is not so much the sacred text as
the whole conception of the SUPERNATURAL. Such things as a providential
earthquake to crack open the earth and swallow some of God's enemies, or a
7

8. common walking stick left overnight in a dry place, that actually budded, bloomed
out with fresh leaves, blossoms, and ripe fruit all at the same time within a twenty-
four hour period - aye, "There's the rub." People, who do not actually believe in the
God of the Bible will never be able to understand it!
Numbers 16:1-3
"Now Korah, the son of Izhar, the son of Kohath, the son of Levi, with Dathan, and
Abiram, the sons of Eliab, and On, the son of Peleth, sons of Reuben, took men: and
they rose up before Moses, with certain of the children of Israel, two hundred and
fifty princes of the congregation, called to the assembly, men of renown; and they
assembled themselves together against Moses and against Aaron, and said unto
them, Ye take too much upon you, seeing all the congregation are holy, every one of
them, and Jehovah is among them: wherefore then lift ye up yourselves above the
assembly of Jehovah?"
"Now Korah ..." Korah was clearly the leader of this rebellion, a fact inherent in his
name's appearance here at the head of the narrative, but, as in every rebellion in all
ages, there must of necessity have been others besides the leader who associated with
it. Despite the plural "they" in Numbers 16:3, it was Korah who took the 250
princes (Numbers 16:2); and Dathan and Abiram, the dissident Reubenites, are
mentioned as satellites and subordinates. True, Moses, in Deuteronomy 11:6,
mentioned what God "did to Dathan and Abiram," with no mention of Korah, but
the rebellion was not even under consideration in that passage. What Moses
referred to was the spectacular wonders God that had performed now and then in
Israel's history, citing particularly those men as being "swallowed" up by the earth!
Korah's name could not have fit into that context at all. Korah probably perished,
not in the earthquake, but in the fire from God that devoured the 250 princes whom
he led. This is just another SICK EXCUSE that the critics have seized in order to
allege TWO REBELLIONS. Throughout both the O.T. and the N.T., Korah stands
out as the named leader and author of this rebellion,[4] and there is no mention
anywhere of a rebellion by Abiram and Dathan, except in their participation here as
satellites.
There were three visible elements in this major challenge of Mosaic authority:
(1) Korah, himself a Levite, and a part of that group assigned to guard and
transport the most sacred portions of the sanctuary, was not satisfied with his status
and desired also a share of the priesthood, even the High Priesthood, and moved,
through ambition and jealousy, to seize it contrary to the express commandment of
God.
(2) Dathan and Abiram and On were Reubenites, their ancestor, Reuben, the first-
born of Jacob, having been deprived of the right of primogeniture (because of his
adultery with Bilhah, the concubine of his father Jacob), thus losing the headship of
Israel, and many have supposed that the participation of some of Reuben's
8

9. descendants in this rebellion led by Korah was due to their hope of recovering some
of the lost prerogatives of Reuben, especially as it pertained to the leadership of
Israel.
(3) Then, there were 250 princes from all of the Twelve Tribes. They, also,
apparently were moved by a number of motives:
(a) They had just been "passed over" in previous enumerations of the leaders of the
tribes and were perhaps jealous.
(b) They were disgusted with the sentence of death announced for their whole
generation in the previous chapters.
(c) They possibly blamed Moses for their disastrous defeat at Hormah, where, it will
be remembered, the ark did NOT accompany them.
(d) And the "public" always finds occasion to complain, disapprove, and ultimately
reject public leaders, no matter who they are.
It is a tribute to the skill and ability of Korah that he was able to organize and rally
these several streams of dissatisfaction into one viable sedition directed against
Moses and Aaron. In a human sense, one may well understand their motivation.
They were simply determined not to waste away and die there in the wilderness
without a vigorous attempt to do something about it. To them, the most practical
thing appeared to be the overthrow of Moses and a return to Egypt, which they
remembered as "a land flowing with milk and honey" (Numbers 16:13)! The
blindness of this whole rebellious movement is not only seen in the false memory
they had of Egypt, but also in their total unawareness of God and God's will as
made known unto them through Moses.
"On ..." was here named a part of the seditious party, but the fact of his being
nowhere else mentioned is interpreted in various ways. Most believing scholars
assume that perhaps, "He probably withdrew from the contest before it came to a
head."[5] Critics, on the other hand, never miss an opportunity to use their axe on
the Word of God. Wade mentions "others" who see a split in what the critics
usually call the "J" source, making another from "E", hence "JE".[6] Some dismiss
On's name here as due to "a textual error." All quibbles of that kind may be
resolved in the simple truth that no man knows why On's name appears here and
nowhere else. In the brief story of an entire rebellion, would Moses have stopped to
make a report on just who was involved at every moment of it, or who might have
been drawn into it at first and later withdrew from it? We are simply not dealing
with that kind of narrative, and how blind are those using such devices, which have
no effectiveness at all when applied to the Word of God.
"All the congregation are holy ... wherefore lift ye up yourselves (Moses and Aaron)
above the assembly ...?" (Numbers 16:13). Note the skill by which Korah combined
9

10. two definite streams of complaint. As pertaining to Korah and his partisans, their
complaint centered on the exclusiveness of holiness to the priesthood, and as for
Dathan, Abiram, and On, the elevation of Moses over the people (Moses was a
Levite), rather than some Reubenite from the tribe of Dathan and Abiram
(Reubenites) was the issue. Both issues come up in the same Numbers 16:3. Even the
great bone of contention about that sentence of death in the wilderness, which seems
to be the grounds upon which the 250 princes associated with the sedition, was
explicitly included in Numbers 16:13. "Thou hast brought us up ... to kill us in this
wilderness."
Now look at this: The critical nonsense that ascribes this passage to some priesthood
in post-exilic times, who allegedly invented this narrative and inserted it into the
Holy Scriptures to strengthen their claims of the Aaronic priesthood, appears here
as unqualifiedly fraudulent. Could a priesthood intent on strengthening their claims
have inserted a reference here to Exodus 19:5,6, which reference exposes the whole
Jewish priesthood in their true status as a substitute for the will of God? See my
notes on that passage. It does anything but strengthen the priesthood of Israel, but
rather casts a most solemn shadow over all of it, a shadow that culminated in
Malachi in God's curse of that very priesthood! Of all the theories ever concocted by
unbelieving men, this priesthood "source" of anything in the whole Bible is the
champion falsehood!
BENSON, "Verse 1-2
Numbers 16:1-2. The many ample testimonies, nay, the astonishing miracles,
whereby God had established the authority of Moses as chief governor, and of
Aaron and his family as priests, were not sufficient to restrain the ambition of
mutinous and designing men. Korah, cousin-german to Moses and Aaron, a man of
some note among the Levites, thinking himself undervalued, it seems, by the post he
was in as a mere Levite, and being left without hopes of arriving at the priesthood,
as things now stood, resolves upon a mutiny against them, and attempts to raise
himself to the priesthood, by forcing them to change their measures, or else putting
them down from their authority. Sons of Reuben — These are drawn into
confederacy with Korah, partly because they were his next neighbours, both being
encamped on the south side, partly in hopes to recover their rights of primogeniture,
in which the priesthood was comprehended, which was given away from their
father. Rose up — That is, conspired together, and put their design in execution;
before Moses — Not obscurely, but openly and boldly, not fearing nor regarding the
presence of Moses.
TRAPP, "Numbers 16:1 Now Korah, the son of Izhar, the son of Kohath, the son of
Levi, and Dathan and Abiram, the sons of Eliab, and On, the son of Peleth, sons of
Reuben, took [men]:
10

11. Ver. 1. The son of Izhar.] And so first cousin to Moses and Aaron; for Izhar was
brother to Amram their father. [Exodus 6:18]
Sons of Reuben.] Who, being next neighbours to Korah in the camp, were the
sooner corrupted by him.
“ Uvaque corrupta livorem ducit ab uva. ” - Juven.
POOLE, "Korah, Dathan, and Abiram raise sedition against Moses and Aaron,
Numbers 16:1-3. Moses reproving them, Numbers 16:4-11, sends for Dathan and
Abiram; their refusal and answer, Numbers 16:12-14. The manneer of their
punishment, Numbers 16:15-35. Their perfuming censers are kept for a memorial
and warning, Numbers 16:36-40. The people murmur against Moses and Aaron, for
which they are consumed by the plague, which Aaron by Moses’s order stays,
Numbers 16:41-50.
Korah, the first and chief author of this rebellion, Numbers 16:11 Jude 1:11.
Izhar was Amram’s brother, Exodus 6:18, therefore Moses and he were cousin-
germans. Moreover Izhar was the second son of Kohath, whereas Elizaphan, whom
Moses had preferred before him, and made prince or ruler of the Kohathites,
Numbers 3:30, was the son of Uzziel, the fourth son of Kohath. This, the Jewish
writers say, made him malcontent, which at last broke forth into sedition.
Sons of-Reuben: these are drawn into confederacy with Korah, partly because they
were his next neighbours, both being encamped on the south side, and therefore
could easily communicate counsels; partly in hopes to recover their rights of
primogeniture, in which the priesthood was comprehended, which was given away
from their father.
Took men, to wit, those two hundred and fifty mentioned Numbers 16:2. In the
Hebrew there is nothing but took, and the Hebrew words are placed and may well
be rendered thus, Now Korah—took both Dathan and Abiram, &c., or took Dathan,
&c., the particle vau being here superfluous, as it is Genesis 8:6, and elsewhere.
PULPIT, "Numbers 16:1
Now Korah … took men. ‫ח‬ ַ‫ר‬ֹ‫ק‬ ‫ח‬ַ‫קּ‬ִ‫ַיּ‬‫ו‬. The word "took" stands alone at the head of the
sentence in the singular number. This does not by itself confine its reference to
Korah, because it may be taken as repeated after each of the other names; at the
same time, the construction suggests that in its original form Korah alone was
mentioned, and that the other names were afterwards added in order to include
them in the same statement. The ellipsis after "took" (if it be one) may be filled up
by "men," as in the A.V. and in most versions, or by "counsel," as in the Jerusalem
Targum. The Septuagint has in place of ‫ח‬ַ‫קּ‬ִ‫י‬ ἐλάλησε, representing apparently a
11

12. different reading. Some commentators regard it as an anacoluthon for "took two
hundred and fifty men … and rose up with them;" others, again, treat the "took" as
a pleonasm, as in 2 Samuel 18:18 and elsewhere; but the change of number from
‫ח‬ַ‫קּ‬ִ‫ַיּ‬‫ו‬ to ‫ָקוּטוּ‬‫יּ‬ַ‫ו‬ makes it difficult. It seems best to say that the construction is broken
and cannot be satisfactorily explained. Indeed there can be no question that the
whole narrative, like the construction of the opening verses, is rely confused, and
leaves on the mind the impression that it has been altered, not very skillfully, from
its original form. The two parts of the tragedy, that concerning the company of
Korah, and that concerning the Reubenites, although mingled in the narrative, do
not adjust themselves in the mind, and the general effect is obscure. It is sufficient to
point out here that no one can certainly tell what became of the ringleader himself,
who was obviously the head and front of the whole business. Some are strenuously
of opinion that he was swallowed up alive, others as strenuously that he was
consumed with fire; but the simple fact is that his death is not recorded in this
chapter at all, although he is assumed to have perished. The obscurity which hangs
over this passage cannot be traced to any certain cause; the discrepancies and
contradictions which have been discovered in it are clue to mistake or
misrepresentation; nor can any evil motive be plausibly assigned for the
interpolation (if it be such) of that part of the story which concerns the Reubenites.
If, for some reason unknown to us, an original narrative of Korah's rebellion was
enlarged so as to include the simultaneous mutiny of the Reubenites and their fate;
and if, further, that enlargement was so unskillfully made as to leave considerable
confusion in the narrative, wherein does that affect either its truth or its
inspiration? The supernatural influence which watched over the production of the
sacred narrative certainly did not interfere with any of those natural causes which
affected its composition, its style, its clearness or obscurity. Korah, the son of Izhar,
the son of Kohath, the son of Levi. On the genealogy of the Levites see Exodus
22-6:16 , and above on Numbers 19-3:17 . It is generally supposed that some
generations are passed over in these genealogies. Korah belonged to the same
Kohathite sub-tribe as Moses and Aaron, and was related to them by some sort of
cousinship; his father (or ancestor) Izhar was the younger brother of Amram and
the elder brother of Uzziel, whose descendant Elizaphan had been made chief of the
Kohathites. Dathan and Abiram, the sons of Eliab. Eliab himself was apparently the
only son of Pallu, the second son of Reuben (Numbers 26:5, Numbers 26:8). If the
word "son" is to be literally understood in all these cases, then Korah, Dathan, and
Abiram would all be great-great-grandsons of Jacob himself. On, the son of Peleth.
It is one of the strange obscurities of this narrative that On, who appears here as a
ringleader, is never mentioned again either in this chapter or elsewhere. Sons of
Reuben. Reubenites. The encampment of their tribe was on the south side of the
tabernacle in the outer line (Numbers 2:10), while that of the Kohathites was on the
same side in the inner line. Thus they were to some extent neighbours; but see below
on Numbers 3:24.
EBC, "KORAH, DATHAN, AND ABIRAM
12

13. Numbers 16:1-50; Numbers 17:1-13
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 Numbers 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 Numbers
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,
13

14. 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
14

15. 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
15

16. 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
16

17. 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 Numbers 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 6:1-81 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 88:1-18, is ascribed.
17

18. 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, Numbers 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 (Numbers 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
18

19. 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
19

20. 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
20

21. 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."
PARKER, " Every Man In His Place
Numbers 16
This is strikingly modern in its temper. This ancient democracy has steadily kept
pace with the ages and is at this moment as lively and audacious as ever. It is hard
for men to keep their places; it is hard because the next higher place appears to be
so near and so accessible. It is always difficult for the heart to be quiet, contented,
restful in God; it is fertile in plan, ambitious in spirit, conscious of great power, and
not wholly unconscious of great deserts. But men fritter away their strength by
finding fault with their positions. We can only work really and deeply, and therefore
lastingly, as we have the blessed consciousness of being where God has put us, and
doing the kind of service God has indicated. The appointment may be an inferior
one, but it is divine, and, therefore, if we answer it with faithfulness and obedience,
we shall find in the discharge of its duties sweet comfort and a continual
Revelation -invigoration of our best motive and purpose. The people who rebelled
against Moses had inferior appointments in connection with the tabernacle; but they
were not content with these: they actually sought not only the priesthood, but,
according to the literal translation, the high-priesthood. They would have censers
such as Aaron himself used; they would try what they could do on the throne; they
did not see any reason why they should be excluded from the very pontificate of
Israel. Who ever did see any reason why he should not be a great man? It is
expecting much of human nature to expect it to be just what it Isaiah , and to accept
the position simply, loyally, gratefully;—but only in such acceptance of position can
men be their best and do their best. Let a preacher once get it into his mind that he
ought to move in a larger circle and have a pulpit twice the size of his present pulpit,
and the ambition which moves his mind in that direction, takes away from him
much of his working strength, so that, instead of filling the little sphere, or the
sphere comparatively small, he shrinks within it and becomes for all effective service
a smaller man than he really is. Let us accept our position whatever it be, saying,—
God put me here, he takes care of me while I am here, and when he wants me in
some larger place he will send for me, and until the message comes I will serve him
with both hands diligently, and my heart shall be as a fire burning up towards him
in aspiration and sacrifice.
What a picture life is with regard to personal position and social gradation!—and
we cannot alter the picture; do what we may, still the graduated lines are plainly
written, and they constitute a kind of unnamed but verily inspired Bible. There are
men who are as Moses and Aaron amongst us, and there are men who are as Korah,
21

22. and Dathan, and Abiram. Outbreaks of temper do occur in regard to social position
and influence. The question will arise,—"Who is greatest in the kingdom of
heaven?"—but all complainings arise and perish without touching the settled and
determined lines of personal function, and social gradation, and ecclesiastical and
other relationships. There is a tide in these things, as in the sea, and no Canute can
roll back the advancing water. It is not enough to assent to these propositions; the
aim of their statement is to constitute itself into a noble persuasion to adopt them
and to make them part of the rule and guide of life. Moses said,—If this is the case,
meet me to-morrow; bring your censers, put fire therein, and put incense before the
Lord to-morrow; and whom the Lord chooses, let him be pontiff. That is the only
appeal. The battle has been settled ten thousand times, and still the war of ambition
rages in the human heart. The morrow came; the competitors were there; what
became of them we know. It would be difficult to believe the letter of this ancient
history if we did not see the same fate happening to every Korah, Dathan, and
Abiram in our own day. Modern facts help us to receive the testimony of ancient
history. In all the departments of life there are men who are as Moses and Aaron.
Take any department of life that may first occur to the imagination. Shall we say the
department of commerce? Even in the marketplace we have Moses and Aaron, and
they cannot be deposed. Where is the man who thinks he could not conduct the
largest business in the city? Yet the poor cripple could not conduct it, and the
greatest punishment that could befall the creature would be to allow him to attempt
to rule a large and intricate commercial concern. But it seems to be hard for a man
to see some other man at the very head of commercial affairs whose word is law,
whose signature amounts to a species of sovereignty, and to know that all the while
Hebrews , the observer, Isaiah , in his own estimation, quite as good a man—a
person of remarkable capacity, and he is only waiting for an opportunity to wear a
nimbus of glory—a halo of radiance—that would astound the exchanges of the
world. But it cannot be done. There are great business men and small business men:
there are wholesale men and retail men, and neither the wholesale nor the retail
affects the quality of the man"s soul, or the destiny of the man"s spirit; but, as a
matter of fact, these distinctions are made, and they are not arbitrary: in the spirit
of them there is a divine presence. If men could believe this, they would be
comforted accordingly. Every preacher knows in his inmost soul that he is fit to be
the Dean of St. Paul"s, or the Dean of Westminster,—every preacher knows that;
but to be something less—something officially lower—and yet to accept the inferior
position with a contentment which is inspired by faith in God, is the very conquest
of the Spirit of heaven in the heart of Prayer of Manasseh , is a very miracle of
grace. Even the Apostle Paul required education in this matter—"for," said
Hebrews , "I have learned,"—referring to a process of daily education—"in
whatsoever state I Amos , therewith to be content." Shall we take the department of
poetry? As a matter of fact, even in that department there are some men higher than
others. It is an astounding thing that there should be in the department of poetry
some men who can make poetry, and some men who can only read it. How difficult
to believe that the man who has made two lines rhyme cannot write the "Idylls of
the King"! There is always the secret hope that the development may come late; it is
an ineffable comfort to know that some men reached their highest influence at a
22

23. very remote period of life. Who made these men different? Who made one man able
to make paper and another man able to write upon it as the great poets have
written? We cannot be atheistic in presence of such facts. We may differ about the
name to be applied, but there is the absolute fact—that even in the region of poetry,
some men can make it and other men cannot. When it is made, there is no mistake
about it; the heart answers the appeal; the world waits to see where the fire will fall,
and when it has fallen there is no mistaking the answer of the human observer. We
know the Bible by the reading of it; we know inspiration by the sharing of it; we feel
that the stranger beside us is a guest from heaven, because he makes our heart burn
within us. We did not make ourselves; we must not attempt to appoint ourselves. We
must remember that we are not our own: that we are the flock of God—the sheep of
his pasture: that he formed us, and not we ourselves: that the very hairs of our head
are all numbered, and that in the Father"s house there are many mansions. "O, rest
in the Lord, and wait patiently for him; and he will give thee thine heart"s
desire,"—or, if not, he will give thee some larger blessing, showing the capacity of
the heart is not the measure of the divine bounty.
Moses took the only course that was open to him. It is no use arguing with men as to
greatness: let the appeal be to experience; let us come to the testimony of fact. This
applies to the pre-eminence of the Cross of Christ. Many a Korah, Dathan, and
Abiram has said to the Cross,—Thou dost take too much upon thee. The Cross
says,—Let the appeal be to history, to fact, to power. The Cross never claims to be
accepted without examination, and testing, and competition in some sacred and
noble sense of that term. Philosophy has said,—I can save the world, and as for thee,
thou grim Cross, thou takest too much upon thee; thou art broad in sentimental
appeal, but I am subtle in all my researches and fundamental in all my relations and
my instructions. The Cross is willing that philosophy should be tried. It has been
tried. It has a beautiful voice, a delicate touch, an eye that sees in the darkness. The
Cross does not despise the love of wisdom—which is the true definition of
philosophy;—but philosophy cannot touch the whole life: it touches certain men,
appeals with great effect to certain qualities of men: it speaks to men of large
capacity or of ample leisure, to persons who have time to give to the study of
philosophy proper attention; but philosophy, as ordinarily understood, does not get
into the universal heart, does not cover the universal experience, does not rejoice
with them that do rejoice, and weep with them that weep; it lacks what the Cross
has—the patience, the sympathy, the long hand that reaches into the heart"s
innermost necessity and ministers to the life"s profoundest need. Morality says to
the Cross,—Thou dost take too much upon thee; I can make the world what it ought
to be. And the Cross says,—Let the appeal be to history; let the appeal be to facts;
let us abide by the arbitrament of reality. So morality comes with small recipes and
nostrums and codes of behaviour, and bills of disci pline, and insists upon
registering human behaviour according to certain more or less pedantic laws; but
morality never touches the world"s deepest wound; morality Isaiah , according to
its own verbal definition, a manner, a posture, a calculated attitude, a providence
based upon a species of arithmetic. So philosophy, morality, imagination, new
schemes, new books, have all arisen to challenge the supremacy of the Cross. Is the
23

24. Cross not a philosophy? The Cross is the profoundest of all philosophy, though it
does not come to the world under that name, but under some tenderer designation.
Is not the Cross a morality? The Cross insists upon righteousness; it will have
nothing to do with wickedness; it seeks to purge human nature of its depravity. It
does not begin with codes of behaviour, but with regeneration—with the new or
second birth of the heart, and out of that will come clean hands, a pure tongue, a
noble speech, a charitable disposition, and a sacrificial service of the world. So we
do not separate Christianity from philosophy, morality, imagination, great and
intellectual speculation; but we put these things all in their right places and
relations, and the appeal of Christianity is an appeal to sinners, to lost men, to
hearts that cannot heal themselves, to a ruin complete and absolute; afterwards we
come to high thinking, brilliant speculation, a very apocalypse of vision and wonder
and gracious delight. So Christianity asks for no quarter upon any arbitrary or
superstitious grounds; it is willing that to-morrow every Korah, Dathan, and
Abiram shall meet it, and let the contest be settled by experience. Christianity can
call upon a thousand men to speak in its name and ten thousand times ten thousand
more day by day. Let the question be—What has most deeply touched your life?
What has given you the surest and strongest hope under the pressure of a guilty
conscience, the charges of an accusing memory? What has touched your tears most
lovingly and healingly? What was it that sat up with you longest in the dark night
time? What was it that found for you flowers in the snow, and summer among the
winter ice? Speak out—be just; and the heart will say, whenever there has been any
real experience,—The Cross of our Lord Jesus Christ has covered most of my life,
most has healed my diseases, has spoken to me a larger language than I ever heard
before—"God forbid that I should glory, save in the Cross of our Lord Jesus
Christ."
The rebels were overthrown and a marvellous providence asserts itself immediately
in connection with the overthrow:
"And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto Eleazar the son of Aaron the
priest, that he take up the censers out of the burning, and scatter thou the fire
yonder; for they are hallowed. The censers of these sinners against their own souls,
let them make them broad plates for a covering of the altar: for they offered them
before the Lord, therefore they are hallowed: and they shall be a sign unto the
children of Israel" ( Numbers 16:36-38).
So Christianity uses the weapons of its opponents: as David uses the sword of
Goliath; so that which has been consecrated unto the Lord, even by men whose
spirit and temper were not divine, must be claimed for the service of the altar. The
altar was made of wood, yet it was covered with metal that the continual burning
upon it might not injure the structure; and now "the censers of these sinners against
their own souls," shall be made into "broad plates for a covering of the alta;r."—
Behold the Cross—what changes it is undergoing in outward appearance! What are
these things which men are nailing to it now? Swords taken in war, trophies
brought from the battlefield, crowns once erected in ignoble pride against the
24

25. supremacy of Christ. So the process goes on. What a Cross it is! What a spectacle!—
nailed to it every weapon that has ever been raised against it; and in the very
upbuilding of the Cross through the generations we shall read a history which no
pen could ever fully write. Shall we join this process of nailing to the Cross that
which we have used against it? We have used our little genius—let us go and nail it
to the Cross. We have opened our mouth in rude eloquence in many a charge and
objection against the Cross—let us give our remaining breath to the praise of him
who has never looked upon us but with upbraiding or hopeful gaze. We have fooled
away our money in helping those to propagate their views whose object was to turn
all earth into a flat plane confined within the four corners of a definite boundary,
and to shut out the blue heavens, or to use them merely for the sake of
convenience—let us take what remains and say,—Thou wounded Lamb of God, we
know thou canst pardon sin, but canst thou forgive folly?—we know not the
measure between the tragedy of thy sacrifice and the turpitude of our guilt, but we
are not only sinners: we are fools—oh canst thou, Son of God, pity the fool as well as
forgive the criminal?—we thought to fight against thee: we meant to win: we
accepted the challenge, and now there is nothing left of our rebellious selves but our
censers,—Galilean, thou hast conquered!
Let us then accept our places in the divine providence; let us acknowledge a divine
order in social relations; do not let us attempt to settle great social questions by the
rule of thumb.—Do not imagine that rich and poor can be levelled together all into
one plane by some easy democratic method; do let us recognise the presence of a
marvellous providence in life. On the other hand, do not let us take such a view of
that providence as to lead us to tyrannise over our weaker fellow-creatures; do not
let us imagine that we are gods and have a right to override all poor and inferior
persons; the true line of wisdom lies between. What hast thou that thou has not
received?—that should be the question which every man should hear addressed to
himself when he is counting his gold and adding fields to his estate and is most
conscious of his commanding intellect and his imperial genius. And as for the poor,
they should be taught that poverty is no disgrace. There is a rich poverty. There is a
noble failure in life; there is a bankruptcy with extenuating circumstances. There
are sufferings that have a divine meaning behind them. So we will have no boasting
and no despairing. We are free—the rich and the poor, the leader and the follower.
"The Lord reigneth; let the earth rejoice."
Note
Korah was the leader of the famous rebellion against his cousins Moses and Aaron
in the wilderness, for which he paid the penalty of perishing with his followers by an
earthquake and flames of fire ( Numbers 16; Numbers 26:9-11). The particular
grievance which rankled in the mind of Korah and his company was their exclusion
from the office of the priesthood, and their being confined—those among them who
were Levites—to the inferior service of the tabernacle, as appears clearly, both from
the words of Moses in Numbers 16:9, and from the test resorted to with regard to
the censers and the offering of incense. The same thing also appears from the
25

26. subsequent confirmation of the priesthood to Aaron ( Numbers 17). The
appointment of Elizaphan to be the chief of the Kohathites ( Numbers 3:30) may
have further inflamed his jealousy. Korah"s position as leader in this rebellion was
evidently the result of his personal character, which was that of a bold, haughty,
and ambitious man. This appears from his address to Moses in Numbers 16:3, and
especially from his conduct in Numbers 16:19, where both his daring and his
influence over the congregation are very apparent. Were it not for this, one would
have expected the Gershonites—as the elder branch of the Levites—to have
supplied a leader in conjunction with the sons of Reuben, rather than the family of
Izhar, who was Amram"s younger brother. From some cause which does not clearly
appear, the children of Korah were not involved in the destruction of their father, as
we are expressly told in Numbers 26:11, and as appears from the continuance of the
family of the Korahites to the reign at least of Jehoshaphat ( 2 Chronicles 20:19),
and probably till the return from the captivity ( 1 Chronicles 9:19, 1 Chronicles
9:31). Perhaps the fissure of the ground which swallowed up the tents of Dathan and
Abiram did not extend beyond those of the Reubenites. From Numbers 26:27 it
seems clear that Korah himself was not with Dathan and Abiram at the moment.
His tent may have been one pitched for himself, in contempt of the orders of Moses,
by the side of his fellow-rebels, while his family continued to reside in their proper
camp nearer the tabernacle; or it must have been separated by a considerable space
from those of Dathan and Abiram. Or, even if Korah"s family resided amongst the
Reubenites, they may have fled, at Moses"s warning, to take refuge in the Kohathite
camp, instead of remaining, as the wives and children of Dathan and Abiram did
( Numbers 16:27). Korah himself was doubtless with the two hundred and fifty men
who bare censers nearer the tabernacle ( Numbers 16:19), and perished with them
by the "fire from Jehovah" which accompanied the earthquake.
—Smith"s Dictionary of the Bible.
PETT, "Introduction
Chapter 16 The Rebellion and Attempted Coup Under Korah, Dathan and Abiram.
This account of a rebellion against Moses and Yahweh is given in order to establish
the Aaronic rights to the priesthood, and possibly also to bring out the antagonism
that resulted from the failure to enter the land.
2). The Service of The Priests, Answering the Question Who Has The Right To
Approach Yahweh.
It cannot be accidental that following the chapter in which offerings and sacrifices
were called for, properly offered; the demand was made that unwitting sin be
properly dealt with; and that high handed sin be punished by being cut off from
among the people; and the people were called on to wear the mark of Yahweh to
show that they were His holy people, we have a chapter where high handed sin is
26

27. openly manifested, and those most guilty are indeed cut off, while it is clearly
revealed that His people are only holy through His good services.
In the previous chapter one man defied Yahweh and was cut off. In this chapter
many will defy Yahweh and they too will be cut off. And the holiness of the people,
which they proudly claimed for themselves, would be seen to be totally of His doing
through the means that He has provided.
Here we have a complete justification of Yahweh’s refusal to allow this people to
enter His land. They are revealed to be totally unfitted for its conquest and
enjoyment.
Also basic to this passage, and the further reason that it is included here, is the fact
that it established the uniqueness of the Aaronic priesthood in all aspects of worship
in the Dwellingplace. For this trend see Numbers 16:3; Numbers 16:5; Numbers
16:9-10; Numbers 16:35; Numbers 16:37-38; Numbers 16:40; Numbers 16:46-48.
But there can be no doubt that historically speaking it was also a dangerous
situation that could have resulted in the end for Israel. It was not just a theological
dispute. There was open rebellion against Moses and Aaron, and finally against
Yahweh, seething in the camp. So we will first of all deal with this issue which tends
to strike the modern reader most. A careful analysis will be necessary as it is due to
the failure to make such an analysis that so much criticism is levelled at the passage.
Turning back from Canaan and going back into the wilderness had necessarily
shaken Israel to the core. All their hopes and dreams had collapsed, and they had
seen before themselves a bleak and unenviable future. And they may well have laid
much of the blame on the fact that Moses and Aaron had not allowed them to take
the Ark with them into battle (Numbers 14:44). If the Ark had gone before them,
they possibly thought, would not all their enemies have scattered and fled before it?
(Numbers 10:35). They were disillusioned with both the secular and religious
leadership.
Thus the impetus that had mainly bound them to Moses when all seemed hopeful
could be seen to have gone. Indeed if he was not needed to lead them into the
promised land of what need was there to follow him? And if he was discredited so
was Aaron and his High Priesthood. So their thoughts would run. And they would
begin to question the whole basis of their society. It was probably on the basis of this
dissatisfaction of the people that two sets of people began to plot against Moses,
Korah and the Levites on the one hand, who coveted promotion to the priesthood
and control of holy things, and Dathan and Abiram with their fellow Reubenites on
the other, who had political power in mind.
This resulted in these Levites and Reubenites, who both had their camps on the
south side of the Dwellingplace, coming together and deciding to take advantage of
the disgruntlement of the people in order to advance themselves, probably having in
27

28. view the taking of control over Israel and the High Priesthood.
There were clearly two groups involved, Korah the Levite, Moses’ distant cousin,
along with fellow ‘sons of Levi’ (Numbers 16:8; Numbers 16:10), who enjoyed the
special privileges of the Dwellingplace, and who was very ambitious and whose main
aim was to seek the full priesthood (Numbers 16:10), and Dathan, Abiram and On,
three prominent Reubenites, with their ‘families’, whose aim was probably a coup
so that they could seize political power. These were united in their opposition to
Moses, probably with a joint plan that would benefit both. Korah would replace
Aaron as High Priest, the other three would replace Moses. In those days both
religious and secular implications had to be considered in any coup. Moses could not
be deposed while Aaron was still there. And that meant discrediting his unique
status. Thus the uniting of two such opposing parties was to be expected.
We note that there were ‘two hundred and fifty princes, men of renown’ backing
Korah, all seemingly Levites, for Moses speaks constantly of ‘you sons of Levi’. As
two hundred and fifty Isaiah 5 x 5 x 10, the covenant number doubly intensified, it
may simply be intended to reflect the ‘holy’ nature of the group rather than being a
literal head count. This was rebellion by a covenant group at the very heart of the
covenant.
The first thing that they did was to come together in ‘an assembly’ to officially
challenge Moses and Aaron. The initial tack they took was to challenge Moses on
religious grounds. For they knew that if they were to be successful they would have
to undermine the religious positions of Moses and Aaron. So while Dathan and
Abiram were probably the most dangerous conspirators from a secular point of
view, they were happy to leave the initial onslaught to Korah and use him as a front
man. That is probably why his name came first in verse 1. It was he who would be in
the best position to lay a religious foundation for the rebellion and thus carry the
people with them.
His argument was subtle. It was that, as all knew, Yahweh had declared all the
people to be holy (Exodus 19:5-6). This had especially come home even more
recently in the fact that their new tassels declared that they were ‘holy to Yahweh’
(Numbers 15:40). Thus if all were holy, and even enjoyed a special uniform
declaring them to be so, surely all could enter the Holy Place. After all Moses had
constantly stressed that ‘Yahweh was among them’ (compare Numbers 14:14;
Exodus 29:45-46; Leviticus 26:12). Thus they wanted to know, in that case, by what
right Moses and Aaron had lifted themselves above ‘the assembly of Yahweh’ as
though they were especially holy? Why had they kept it as a family thing? Were not
all the people holy?
In a situation like this we are only given the gist of the argument and there was
probably much argued about this matter which we are not told, but it was clear
what their aim was. They wanted entry into the priesthood.
28

29. Dathan and Abiram sat quietly by and said nothing. This was not their territory.
They were scheming something much more revolutionary. But that could await the
recognition by Israel of their allies as members of the sacred priesthood. The fact
that they were the real final danger comes out in that in the event it was to be their
wider families who were all destroyed. In the case of Korah and his Levites it was
only the men themselves.
At this point Moses clearly sought a break in order to consult Yahweh, and he fell
on his face before Him and sought His will (Numbers 16:4). Yahweh then instructed
him on what to do and he acted accordingly. So they wanted to break into the
priesthood in spite of Yahweh’s clear instructions? Well, they would not be denied
their opportunity, as long as they were prepared to face the consequences.
So Moses called in Korah and his band of Levites (the 250) and instructed them that
if they wished to put in a claim to be priests they should come the next day, each
with a censer in his hand, and burn incense before Yahweh. But he warned them
that Yahweh would then demonstrate who was holy and would cause those whom
He chose to come near to Him (Numbers 16:5). Then he made a plea to them that if
they would only consider the matter, they would recognise that they were already
highly favoured. Had not Yahweh separated them from the congregation of Israel
for holy service with regard to His Dwellingplace, and allowed them to come nearer
to Him than any other tribe in Israel? Did they then really wish to seek the
priesthood as well? We may presume that he reminded them of what the instruction
that he had received from Yahweh said, and reminded them of what had happened
to Nadab and Abihu (Leviticus 10:1)
Korah and his band of Levites seem to have gone back to their tents well satisfied. It
seemed to them that their scheme was working. They would appear in the morning
as he had said, with their censers in their hands. They did not consider the fact
which Moses had drawn attention to, that if they saw themselves as being holier’
than the ordinary people, how could their side then use ‘equal holiness’ as a test of
whether they should be involved in the priesthood? Having been given great
privilege, and accepted it, they had testified to the fact that some of Yahweh’s holy
people could be higher in holiness status than others. Thus their action was
inconsistent with the status that they accepted.
Having temporarily satisfied Korah and the Levites, Moses then turned his attention
to Dathan and Abiram, the Reubenites, who had not been involved in that side of
things. They seemingly had different motives. They were not ‘sons of Levi’. They
had no ambitions for priesthood. They had rather taken the opportunity of Korah’s
dispute in order to introduce their own differences and possibly gain power in other
ways, and as the aftermath demonstrates, they were gathering a host with a view to
a coup. They were after all members of the ‘firstborn’ tribe. Thus when, after they
returned to their tents after the initial meeting, Moses sent for them so that he could
talk further with them, they were in no mood to go. They spurned his orders from
then on. No they would not obey him. Who did he think he was? On what grounds
29

30. did he claim to be a Prince over them? (Numbers 16:13). They would not come up to
the Tent of meeting to meet with him. They no longer accepted his authority. After
all how did they know that it was not a trick, and that once they arrived they would
not be assaulted and blinded? This was a practise of some overlords against
rebellious leaders (compare Samson in Judges 16:21; Zedekiah in 2 Kings 25:7).
Their reply was an act of open rebellion. It was treason. They were rejecting
covenant responsibility and Moses’ leadership (which Korah had not done), which
was why Moses probably saw them as the most dangerous.
The fact that the Kohathites and the Reubenites were both encamped on the south
side of the camp, partly explains how they had got together. But the full possible
impact of the rebellion was clear next day from the fact that Korah was able to call
together ‘the whole congregation’ to gather at the Dwellingplace (Numbers 16:19). It
had become a mass movement which to some extent involved the whole of the
people, not just a small minority, although Moses does distinguish between their
guilt and the guilt of the leaders of the rebellion (Numbers 16:22). But the people
had come in order to discover what it was all about, and to find out what the result
would be, not necessarily to side with Korah.
So when Korah came with his men and their censers, ready to offer incense to
Yahweh before the Tent of meeting, the whole congregation was present to witness
the event. All, that is, apart from the rebels (Numbers 16:19 with Numbers 16:34).
All those with censers then put fire in them and put their incense into the censers,
and at this point the glory of Yahweh appeared to all. Korah and his men were
probably delighted. It would appear to them that Yahweh was accepting their
offering! He had not struck them down. But Yahweh then spoke to Moses and
Aaron and warned them to get away from the congregation as He intended to
destroy them all.
However, Moses pointed out that the congregation had not really done anything
wrong, and that only the guilty should be punished, and as a result of their
intercession Yahweh, speaking anthropomorphically, backed off. He then instructed
him to inform the people that they were to get away from ‘the dwellingplace of
Korah, Dathan and Abiram’, that is from the area on the south side of the Tent of
meeting where they lived. Korah would be in the camp of the Kohathites while
Dathan and Abiram were in the camp of Reuben, both on the south side. In other
words the congregation were to demonstrate their lack of support for the rebels, by
keeping them at a distance and avoiding their tents.
Moses then, clearly at Yahweh’s instructions as comes out in what he later said, took
the elders, who proved loyal to him, and approached the camp of Reuben (Numbers
16:25). Then he called on the members of the congregation who had gathered there
to depart and get as far away as possible from the rebels, and not even touch any of
their possessions. It was a declaration that the rebels were unclean in Yahweh’s
eyes. And the congregation obediently did what he said. Moses would have felt
30

31. quietly contented. He knew that he was gaining back the control that seemed to have
been lost. Then Dathan and Abiram came out to the door of their tents supported in
their display of defiance by their wives and children, and at Moses’ word the ground
opened up and swallowed them. So the rebellion was over.
But only those who ‘appertained to Korah’, that is who were involved with him in
the rebellion, were consumed. They had committed treason as a solid body and
received the punishment for treason. (This in fact possibly included Korah who may
have raced ahead to warn them that Moses was coming, although his death is
nowhere mentioned here, but see Numbers 26:8-10 which is the only place which
mentions his death. That is, however, also ambiguous). At this the people who had
been watching at some distance fled, lest they too be caught up in the catastrophe.
And fire also came down from heaven and smote those who were offering incense on
their censers It should be noted that the sons of Korah are not said to have been
involved in these activities. They in fact were later declared to be alive (Numbers
26:11; Numbers 26:58).
However the mood of the people was such that they were angry at this slaughter of
‘their brothers’. They had not been present at the hostile assembly, nor had they
known about the Reubenites’ defiance of Moses. What had happened seemed
unnecessary and fuelled their already fierce resentment of Moses. So they gathered
together against Moses and Aaron. Yahweh had been right about their mood after
all.
Things might have become dangerous, but Yahweh struck the people with a plague
where they stood, and it was only the intervention of Aaron at Moses’ command in
making atonement for them through his censer that prevented the whole people
being destroyed. The contrast between his burning incense and bringing relief to the
people contrasted vividly with those who had died for burning incense in their
censers. Aaron’s position was firmly established. And that in fact is the main point
of the whole narrative.
The significance of Numbers 16:1 to Numbers 17:13 can be looked at from two
angles, a). Who has the right to offer incense to Yahweh, and b). Who has the right
to enter the Sanctuary? These were the questions that were being mainly dealt with.
We race to look at the history. The writer’s great concern was the theology.
a). Who Has The Right To Offer Incense Fire Before Yahweh?
This is evidenced by the rebellion of the Levite Korah and the Reubenites Dathan
and Abiram, and its aftermath (Numbers 16)). It is divided into two sections:
i). The Competition between Aaron and Korah and his band of Levites (Numbers
16:1-21).
a Korah and his co-conspirators dispute the positions of Moses and Aaron as those
31