Numbers 16:1

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 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 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 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 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!