Numbers 16

Updated
2001-05-26; 14:32:19utc

This chapter continues the account of what our outline called:

III. The Failure of Israel in the Wilderness 15:1-19:22Rebellion of Korah 16:1-40

The incident of Korah's insurrection is referred to twice in Scripture. Moses mentions it again in ch. 26:10 and Jude in vs. 11 of his epistle. Jude places Korah's rebellion in the same category as Cain's murder of Abel, and Balaam's greed. The judgment of the Bible upon this rebellion is very severe. It involves much more than an incident of political friction or a challenge to one man's authority. Korah revolted against the core of God's revelation of Himself. And he did this while using the words and phrases that were politically correct: "The whole community is holy, every one of them, and the LORD is with them."

The accusation against Moses was that he had gone too far. He had been corrupted by the power he wielded. Lord Acton's dictum was being applied to Moses: "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men." This was a serious accusation, because it affected not merely Israel's political life, but its religion. Korah was a Levite, who proposed that the priesthood be opened up to the whole nation of Israel, not just to one family of his own clan. Korah favored a more democratic way of running church and state. His platform would give him a landslide victory in our day and age.

Who was Korah? Scripture identifies him as the son of Izhar, the son of Kohath, the son of Levi. He descended from Levi via Kohath, who was the brother of Amram, Moses' father. So, Korah was Moses' cousin. It may be, however, that the genealogy of the family is incomplete in Scripture and that some names are passed over, which would make the family relationship more removed than apparent.

Who were Korah's followers? Dathan and Abiram are mentioned, from the clan of Reuben. The Pulpit Commentary points out that: "The encampment of their tribe was on the south side of the tabernacle in the outer line (ch. ii. 10), while that of the Kohathites was on the same side in the inner line. Thus they were to some extent neighbours."

What was the issue? We get the impression that Korah's contentions was about the priesthood, and the fact that Aaron and his family were monopolizing it. It could be that the qualm of the Reubenites was more of a political nature; they accused Moses of using his powers in a dictatorial way. It seems that their platforms were not the same, but that they were bound together because they both focused on Moses and his immediate family.

As is often the case, there were some correct points in Korah's argumentation. It was true that, "the whole community [of Israel was] holy, every one of them, and the LORD [was] with them." But, although this was the line of reasoning that was presented, it was not the real issue. Korah did not say that Aaron's position as High Priest ought to be abolished, because the whole nation was a nation of priests. He wanted the priesthood for himself. In later ages the post of High Priest in Israel became an issue of political struggle and intrigue. People bought themselves into the post, sometimes for a year, sometimes longer. Priesthood became subjected to the power of the state, which in New Testament times, was the Roman Empire. Korah recognized the principle that Israel was a kingdom of priest, because it had one person who represented the nation to God as High Priest. The point of contention boiled down to this: Who had the right to choose this representative, God or man? If the office of High Priest would become a man-appointed office, it lost its value, and consequently the holiness of the whole nation would be forfeited.

The holiness of the New Testament church and the priesthood of every believer of Jesus Christ, hinges on the fact that "We do have such a high priest, who sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, and who serves in the sanctuary, the true tabernacle set up by the Lord, not by man."[ 1 ] Jesus answer to Korah is: "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." Ultimately, it is against this statement that Korah rebelled, although he could not see the historical perspective we have.

The text offers various problems in the original. The NIV simply states that Korah, with some other people started an insurrection. Some of the older versions says that Korah "took men." The word "men" does not, however, appear in the original. The NAS translates it with "took action." The Pulpit Commentary says in its introduction to verse 1: "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 very confused, and leaves on the mind the impression that is has been altered, not very skilfully, 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 the opinion that he was swallowed up alive, others as strenuously that he was consumed with the 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 that hangs over this passage cannot be traced to any certain cause; the discrepancies and contradictions which have been discovered in it are due 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 unskilfully 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."

What the learned commentary says amounts, in simpler prose, to a suggestion that there could have been two insurrections: one by Korah and a group of people, and one by the Reubenites, and that two different stories are fused into one account in this chapter. We rather believe, though, that there was one revolt, involving both the Levites, represented by Korah and the Reubenites, lead by Dathan, Abiram and On, and that the report is incomplete, or at least, that some of the details are omitted. We find the same occurrence in the report of the making of the Golden Calf, where Aaron's role is not elaborated on.[ 2 ] It could be that Moses used discretion in reporting on people to whom he was closely related. Blood is thicker than water!

The NIV says that Korah and his group became insolent against Moses. This is the translation of the Hebrew word laqach which means to take. As we saw above, other translation insert the word "men" here to indicate that Korah gathered following in his insurrection. "Insolent" infers that Korah treated Moses in a disrespectful way, insultingly.

From the context we get the impression that the insurrection was triggered by the failure of the people to enter Canaan. None of these men took the blame for their lack of faith in God and for their disobedience. Moses is not only blamed for the exodus from Egypt and the failure to reach the promised goal, but also for the intimacy of his relationship with God. The accusations regarding the exodus and the failed conquest were serious enough, but the attack upon Moses' piety is the basest form of insurrection we can imagine. They say to Moses: "Who do you think your are? Do you have a hot line to heaven?"

Evil people often experience the piety of real believers as a personal insult. The Apostle Paul says: "For we are to God the aroma of Christ among those who are being saved and those who are perishing. To the one we are the smell of death; to the other, the fragrance of life."[ 3 ] Moses' relationship with God was "the smell of death" to Korah.

This part of our Christian testimony is hard to accept for us. We do not mind being "the fragrance of life," but to be "the smell of death" is hard to bear. It accentuated the seriousness of perishing of the unbeliever. We are not talking here about priggish piety that is insincere in the advertisement of itself. That stinks in everyone's nostrils. This is the real thing that makes a person the aroma of Christ to God. More than any other accusation against him, this reproach on his piety must have brought Moses flat on his face. We read: "When Moses heard this, he fell facedown."

The accusation against Moses is that he has gone too far. The Hebrew says literally Rab-laakem, which means "too much taken upon you." This is the way the NKJ translates the phrase: "You take too much upon yourselves." TLB says: "We have had enough of your presumption; you are no better than anyone else." The inference is, on the one hand, that the whole plan of the exodus from Egypt and the conquest of Canaan, would have been Moses' idea, a purely human scheme. On the other hand, the accusation implies that Moses has usurped power, which should have been in the hands of the general public. All the supernatural elements in the recent history of Israel are conveniently forgotten. It is as if these people have never seen the demonstration of God's power, or the revelation of His glory.

Moses' reaction to this accusation is a refusal to refute any of it. He throws himself upon the Lord for his defense. Accusations are always hard to accept, even if there is some truth in them. But false accusations tend to stir up very conflicting emotions inside us. The desire to clear our name and to justify ourselves can become overwhelming. The Bible advises against this kind of reaction. Jesus says in the Sermon on the Mount: "Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you."[ 4 ] Peter calls it "grace" when we suffer unjustly. He says: "For it is commendable if a man bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because he is conscious of God. But how is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it? But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God."[ 5 ] The Greek word translated here with "commendable" is charis, which literally means "grace." If we have identified ourselves with God and His cause, He pledges to take our defense upon Himself. When David was accused wrongly, he wrote in one of the psalms: "But you are a shield around me, O LORD; you bestow glory on me and lift up my head."[ 6 ] Moses sets the example here, by not answering his accusers, but by turning his case over to his Paraclete, his great lawyer.

The suggestion that Korah and his followers come the next morning with a censer and incense and place themselves before the Lord, must have come to Moses in answer to the prayer he said when he fell down before the Lord. Apparently, the proposition was accepted, because the next day we do find a group of men, with censers and incense, in front of the tabernacle.

This proposition shift the accent from Moses to Aaron. It is true that the opposition was against both Moses and Aaron, but we do get the impression that Moses was the primary target. Moses, rather penetratingly, answers in a way that exposes the intent of Korah, that it was the office of high priest he was coveting, more than the leadership of the nation. Moses answers his accusers with the same words they used to accuse him: Rab-laakem, "You have gone too far." Moses shows deep insight into human nature when he says: "He [God] has brought you and all your fellow Levites near himself, but now you are trying to get the priesthood too. It is against the LORD that you and all your followers have banded together. Who is Aaron that you should grumble against him?"

There is a commendable urge to "eagerly desire the greater gifts," as Paul wrote to the church in Corinth.[ 7 ] But there is a difference between the legitimate striving after all that God wants us to have, and the carnal wish to enhance our public standing by obtaining a church office. The Levites who backed up Korah were not satisfied with the privileged place God had given them. Their rebellion was not against Moses or Aaron but against God. They were not satisfied with the place God had assigned them in life. The secret of a satisfied life is to accept that God made us what we are meant to be, and that He placed us where we are meant to be. Very few people know this kind of satisfaction. The human tendency is to plan our own course in life, and nurse a poor self-image while doing it. As long as we are not what God wants us to be, and we are not at the place He made for us in this world, we cannot be a testimony to the world around us; a shining light in the darkness.

In the verses 12-15 Moses tries to deal with the Reubenites. He summons them to a meeting, but they refuse to come. For some unknown reason only Dathan and Abiram are mentioned from this point on. On has faded out of the picture. The accusations these people hurl at Moses are very ugly indeed. They accuse Moses of all the things they have brought upon themselves through their own disobedience and unbelief. They use the terminology God had reserved for the land He had promised the people for the place of horror they had left. They call Egypt, the place of their slavery and shame, "a land flowing with milk and honey." They attribute their failure to enter Canaan to Moses who deceived them and broke his promise. There is no indication that they take any responsibility for their own sins. They accuse Moses of the basest intentions, insinuating that the exodus was not a plan of redemption but a ploy to bring about their extermination. TLB gives a very vivid impression of their attitude by paraphrasing the verses as follows: " 'Is it a small thing,' they mimicked, 'that you brought us out of lovely Egypt to kill us here in this terrible wilderness, and that now you want to make yourself our king? What's more, you haven't brought us into the wonderful country you promised, nor given us fields and vineyards. Whom are you trying to fool? We refuse to come.' " Their dirty insinuations hit Moses even harder than the attack of Korah upon his personal relationship with God. Moses becomes angry, and in anger he prays: "Do not accept their offering. I have not taken so much as a donkey from them, nor have I wronged any of them."

Calling Egypt "a land flowing with milk and honey" indicates that the only thing that counted for them was their stomach. Earlier they had complained about the lack of food items that were readily available in Egypt. They had said: "We remember the fish we ate in Egypt at no cost-- also the cucumbers, melons, leeks, onions and garlic."[ 8 ] Slavery, mistreatment, infanticide, and humiliation were conveniently forgotten. We can clearly distinguish the presence of the enemy in the background, who tries to sell a piece of swamp as prime real estate. He uses the vocabulary of God's promises for the conditions of sin and death. Egypt was the land where their children were murdered; Egypt, "a land flowing with milk and honey!" Already centuries ago Satan was lord of the advertising business.

Behind their accusation is the insinuation that Moses was corrupt; that he had enriched himself by means of his position of leadership. We do not read that they say this in so many words, but Moses' answer: "I have not taken so much as a donkey from them," indicates that either this was in the back of their minds, or that they actually verbalized this, but that it is not included in the record.

The expression the Reubenites use: "Will you gouge out the eyes of these men?" must be a idiomatic expression, which we would not use in this context in our time. The Pulpit Commentary explains it with: "Wilt thou blind them to the utter failure of their plans and promises? Wilt thou throw dust in their eyes?" TLB renders it with, what is probably the most modern equivalent: "Whom are you trying to fool?" After using so cleverly the tools of marketing techniques themselves, they accuse Moses of false advertising. Moses lured them out of Egypt with the promise of "a pie in the sky." In their utter blindness to the reality of God's guidance and miraculous interventions, they have completely fallen victim to satanic propaganda. Moses pleads innocence to all of their charges.

Apparently, after this Moses turns again to Korah with the Lord's instructions to appear the following morning in front of the tabernacle with a censor and incense. It is not too clear what happens the next day. As mentioned before, the death of Korah is not specifically mentioned. He does not seem to be among those who were swallowed up alive in the ensuing earthquake, but we do not read either that he was killed in the fire that consumed the men who had presented themselves before the Lord with their censors. The latter seems to be understood, however. The incomplete and fragmented account of what happened conveys, at least, the confusion that must have been caused by the rapid succession of catastrophes. From vs. 19 it is clear, however, that Korah was present with the group the stood in front of the tabernacle.

When the next morning Korah and 250 of his followers are gathered in front of the tabernacle, and the glory of the Lord appears, the Lord says to Moses: "Separate yourselves from this assembly so I can put an end to them at once." Whether it was really the Lord's intention to wipe out the whole nation of Israel in one blow, or whether this was said to test Moses, is not clear.

What is clear, however, is that God would not be able to do as He said as long as certain individuals, that is Moses, Aaron, and, undoubtedly some others, were still present among them. These limitations that God puts upon Himself reveal the marvelous principle of the positive influence the righteous have upon the condition of this world. When God reveals to Abraham His plan to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah, Abraham answers God with: "Will you sweep away the righteous with the wicked? What if there are fifty righteous people in the city? Will you really sweep it away and not spare the place for the sake of the fifty righteous people in it? Far be it from you to do such a thing-- to kill the righteous with the wicked, treating the righteous and the wicked alike. Far be it from you! Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?"[ 9 ] Abraham then enters into his famous prayer of intercession for the cities. He ends with the request that the Lord would withhold judgment if there were ten righteous. God went must farther than Abraham ever dared to go. When the angels force Lot and his family out of Sodom, the leader says: "But flee there [to Zoar] quickly, because I cannot do anything until you reach it." Sodom and Gomorrah could not have been destroyed if only Lot had been present. One righteous man can save the world!

When Moses and Aaron hear of God's plan to wipe out the whole nation, they fall down on the ground and cry: "O God, God of the spirits of all mankind, will you be angry with the entire assembly when only one man sins?" The rebellion was more general than the insurrection of one man, and we have to understand this as a euphemism, in which one stands for many. God is addressed in a unique way as "God of the spirits of all mankind." This expression is used nowhere else in the Bible. Other translations, such as the RSV, KJV, ASV render the phrase with: "O God, the God of the spirits of all flesh." The Pulpit Commentary says about this profound exclamation: "The ruach is the spirit of life which the Creator has imparted unto perishable flesh, and made it live. In some sense it belongs to beasts as well as to men (Eccles. iii. 19, 21); but in the common use of the word men only are thought of, as having received it by a special communication of a higher order (Gen. ii. 7; 1 Cor. xv. 45). Moses, therefore, really appeals to God, as the Author and Giver of that imperishable life-principle which is lodged in the mortal flesh of all men, not to destroy the works of his own hands, the creatures made in his own image. Here we have in its germ that idea of the universal fatherhood of God which remained undeveloped in Jewish thought until Judaism itself expanded into Christianity."

This appellation of God as "the God of the spirits of all flesh" is the more significant as we look at what follows, when the offenders "go down alive into the grave." Israel is warned to move away from the tents of Korah, Dathan and Abiram, and not to touch anything that belongs to them. In other words they had to disassociate themselves from this rebellion, and by their moving away from it, indicate that they had no part in the insurrection. As mentioned before, it is not clearly stated what happened to Korah. There is no doubt about it that he died, but whether he was swallowed up by the earth, like Dathan and Abiram, or perished in the fire with those who were in front of the tent, we do not know.

What follows can be seen as a natural phenomenon caused by and earthquake, or as a supernatural event in which people enter death by a different way than most people do. The way it is predicted by Moses gives the impression that these people enter the kingdom of death without dying. The prophecy says that "they go down alive into the grave." The Hebrew word for "grave" here is Sheol. The popular concept of what happens to man after his death is not necessarily God's revealed truth on the subject. When we read that the people went down into sheol alive, it may simply mean that they died by being swallowed up by the earth.

Nelson's Illustrated Bible Dictionary says about sheol: "sheol- (meaning unknown)-- in Old Testament thought, the abode of the dead. Sheol is the Hebrew equivalent of the Greek Hades, which means 'the unseen world.' Sheol was regarded as an underground region <Num. 16:30,33; Amos 9:2>, shadowy and gloomy, where disembodied souls had a conscious but dull and inactive existence <2 Sam. 22:6; Eccl. 9:10>. The Hebrew people regarded Sheol as a place to which both the righteous and unrighteous go at death <Gen. 37:35; Ps. 9:17; Is. 38:10>, a place where punishment is received and rewards are enjoyed. Sheol is pictured as having an insatiable appetite <Is. 5:14; Hab. 2:5>. However, God is present in sheol <Ps. 139:8>; (hell, NKJV). It is open and known to Him <Job 26:6; Prov. 15:11>. This suggests that in death God's people remain under His care, and the wicked never escape His judgment. Sheol gives meaning to <Psalm 16:10>. Peter saw the fulfillment of this messianic psalm in Jesus' resurrection <Acts 2:27>." Obviously, we should not see in this section a mythological story, such as the Greek myth of Orpheus and Eurydice.

The most logical explanation seems that the ground was split open by an earthquake, that Dathan and Abiram with everyone and every thing that belonged to them were sucked into the chasm and that, subsequently, the fissure closed again. The supernatural feature of the phenomenon was that it happened exactly as predicated and at the moment it was foretold. The popular concept the people may have had regarding life after death, will have heightened the impact of this happening upon their minds.

The Pulpit Commentary has a lengthy paragraph dealing with the problem of the tents of Dathan and Abiram being swallowed up together with the tent of Korah. It seems to me, however, that the fact that the location of the tents of the tribe of Reuben was adjacent to that of Judah would offer a plausible explanation to the simultaneous disappearance of three tents, if the two of Reuben would be at the edge of the territory of Reuben and Korah's ten on the other side of the fence.

Although we do not read that God instructed Moses to announce the way in which the rebels would die, it is obvious that the mode of execution was not Moses' own idea. God told him what would happen, and that is what he passed on to the people in this prophetic announcement. The point around which the whole uprising evolved was, whether Moses had become the leader of the nation, because he had "run for office," or by divine appointment. If Moses had become the top man because of his own initiative, then Aaron's appoint had been the result of human planning also. But if Moses' and Aaron's offices were part of God's plan for Israel and for the salvation of the world, the opposition of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram was the most serious offense possible. The verdict turns out to be "that these men have treated the LORD with contempt."

The drawing of the line between what is the Lord's doing and what amount to human initiative is a delicate matter. The men God chooses and uses never become puppets in His hands, and the work of God often overlaps with the acts of men. On the other hand, there is a great danger to those God uses that they act at certain moments without a divine fiat. The incident at Meriba, where Moses and Aaron struck the rock, instead of speaking to it, was a point in case.[ 10 ] Korah's criticism of Moses could have been valid, if his motives would have been pure.

We could object to the NIV's use of the phrase "a natural death." The KJV uses the words "a common death." We should never consider death as a natural phenomenon; it is the most unnatural thing that can befall a living being. Man was never meant to die. The fact that it is common for man to die, should not blur our view.

Punishment is swift. Two things, evidently, happen at the same time: the earth opens and Dathan, Abiram and a group of followers of Korah are swallowed up by the grave, and fire comes out of the Lord's presence in the tabernacle and consumes the 250 men who were standing there with the censor and incense. The fire from the Lord was probably the same radiation of God's holiness that killed the two sons of Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, who recklessly entered into the tabernacle with their censor and "unauthorized fire."[ 11 ] In the whole clerical and political intrigue that had filled the minds of the people during the previous days, they had lost touch with reality to the point where they did not consider the holiness of the Lord anything to be approached but with the utmost caution. Even in the New Testament dispensation in which we live, we should always hold before us the words of the writer to the Hebrews: "Let us be thankful, and so worship God acceptably with reverence and awe, for our God is a consuming fire."[ 12 ]

In the verses 37 and 38 the Lord orders Eleazar, Aaron's son, the one who would succeed him as High Priest, to collect the censors from the smoldering remains. The Pulpit Commentary remarks that this task was probably given to Eleazar, and not to Aaron, because it would involve touching dead bodies, and, consequently, would defile the person. The description of the place where the 250 men had stood before the Lord, swinging their censors, as "smoldering remains" makes us understood that those men were probably killed instantly by one massive bolt of lightening that reduced their bodies to ashes. The fact, however, that the censors had been brought into the Lord's presence meant that they had become holy, and they could never again be used for any other purposes. Therefore, they are not to be returned to the families of the victims, although that would have been the logical thing to do. The Lord gives instructions that they are to be beaten out into sheets of metal that would cover the altar. Which altar is meant is not specified here. The Pulpit Commentary says: "The altar of burnt incense." But this would mean that the golden altar that stood in from of the curtain that separated the Holy Place from the Holy of Holiest would be covered with plates of brass, and that seems hardly plausible. Also, the fact that this was done to serve as a "sign to the Israelites" would make us think that the brass burnt offering altar, which was in the court yard and visible to all, would be the one meant here.

If we see the brass burnt offering altar as a picture of the cross of Christ, we can say that the brass plates that symbolizes Korah's rebellion were nailed to the cross. In the context of this chapter the extra layer of brass plates was meant as a reminder of the rebellion, and, consequently, as a warning to the people not to repeat this kind of insurrection. But in the wider context of the whole Bible this symbolic act acquires a deeper meaning. That which is nailed to the cross is abolished. What Paul says about our guilt before God, in his epistle to the Colossians, puts this incident in a clearer perspective also. We read: "When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross."[ 13 ] In order the censors to be hammered into plates of brass to cover the altar, God indicated that He put the rebellion behind Him. If only Israel would have understood this!

When Dathan and Abiram and their families were swallowed up by the grave, the people fled the scene with shouts of: "The earth is going to swallow us too!" This fear, however, did not last long. Only the next day the people turn on Moses and Aaron with the accusation: "You have killed the LORD's people." They act as if the Lord had nothing to do with this, as if it was all Moses' act. What they say, in fact, is that Korah was right and Moses was wrong. This mentality is hard to grasp. The reason Korah, Dathan and Abiram came to such a tragic and dramatic end of their lives was to prove that God had called Moses. Moses had said clearly, before anything happened: "This is how you will know that the LORD has sent me to do all these things and that it was not my idea: If these men die a natural death and experience only what usually happens to men, then the LORD has not sent me. But if the LORD brings about something totally new, and the earth opens its mouth and swallows them, with everything that belongs to them, and they go down alive into the grave, then you will know that these men have treated the LORD with contempt." Jesus met with this same mentality and unbelief when He gave proof of the fact that the Father had sent Him with great signs and miracles of healings and resurrections. The Apostle John comments on this by saying: "Even after Jesus had done all these miraculous signs in their presence, they still would not believe in him."[ 14 ] It was this spirit of unbelief that led to the crucifixion of the Lord of glory.

Adam Clarke's Commentary adds: "It is very likely that the people persuaded themselves that Moses and Aaron had used some cunning in this business, and that the earthquake and fire were artificial; else, had they discerned the hand of God in this punishment, could they have dared the anger of the Lord in the very face of justice?"

About the accusation of the people, The Pulpit Commentary says: "They did not know, or did not heed, that their own immunity was due to the intercession of those whom they thus charged with sacrilegious murder."

The most passionate comment comes from Matthew Henry's Commentary: "Here is, I. A new rebellion raised the very next day against Moses and Aaron. Be astonished, O heavens, at this, and wonder, O earth! Was there ever such an instance of the incurable corruption of sinners? On the morrow (v. 41) the body of the people mutinied. 1. Though they were so lately terrified by the sight of the punishment of the rebels. The shrieks of those sinking sinners, those sinners against their own souls, were yet sounding in their ears, the smell of the fire yet remained, and the gaping earth was scarcely thoroughly closed, and yet the same sins were re-acted and all these warnings slighted. 2. Though they were so lately saved from sharing in the same punishment, and the survivors were as brands plucked out of the burning, yet they fly in the face of Moses and Aaron, to whose intercession they owed their preservation. Their charge runs very high: You have killed the people of the Lord. Could any thing have been said more unjustly and maliciously? They canonize the rebels, calling those the people of the Lord who died in arms against him. They stigmatize divine justice itself. It was plain enough that Moses and Aaron had no hand in their death (they did what they could to save them), so that in charging them with murder they did in effect charge God himself with it. The continued obstinacy of this people, notwithstanding the terrors of God's law as it was given on Mount Sinai, and the terrors of his judgments as they were here executed on the disobedient, shows how necessary the grace of God is to the effectual change of men's hearts and lives, without which the most likely means will never attain the end. Love will do what fear could not."

Matthew Henry is correct in his conclusion that the main problem with Israel was that their hearts had not been changed in their encounter with God. The people were still being manipulated by the enemy, who has no intention to surrender and who does not allow those in his power to admit defeat. The clever use of the religiously correct terminology points to demonic influences among the nation.

It is obvious that the devil has no respect for justice, yet he very cleverly uses the concepts of justice to undermine justice itself. Some of the greatest crimes in the history of the world were committed under the cover of the process of the law. Christians were burned at the stake, after being condemned in a court of law. The Nazis in Germany and some communist regimes were very meticulous in observing the outer forms of justice in committing crimes against humanity. All those pretexts will be unmasked at the end of time. The Apostle John sees it happen, and he writes: "And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown."[ 15 ]

The reaction of the Lord is swift. He orders Moses and Aaron to move out of the way so that the rebels would be destroyed instantly. The two brothers disobey this order, and instead they fall flat on their faces before the Lord in passionate intercession for the people. There are times when disobedience is the only moral option. This also is true in worldly matters: the Bible orders us to obey the government. Paul allows for no exceptions when he says: "Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience."[ 16 ] Yet, Peter and John openly defy the authority of the Sanhedrin, and they say: "Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God's sight to obey you rather than God." The examples of conscientious disobedience to God's command are rare in Scripture, but they do exist. Jacob defied God when he said to the angel who had told him to let go: "I will not let you go unless you bless me."[ 17 ] And here, Moses and Aaron disobey God's command. In both instances we get the impression that God accepted the resistance of His servants; it is almost as if God would rather that His command were disobeyed than obeyed.

For people who want to "go by the book" this presents serious problems. How can one know that God wants to be disobeyed when obedience is the key to fellowship with Him and the proof of our love for Him? One cannot know without an intimacy of fellowship with God that goes beyond the average. Moses and Aaron knew that God would rather not destroy than destroy. They understood the conflict between God's righteousness and His love, and they threw themselves on the side of His love.

God honored this by giving Moses some prophetic insight. We gather this from what Moses says to Aaron: "Take your censer and put incense in it, along with fire from the altar, and hurry to the assembly to make atonement for them. Wrath has come out from the LORD; the plague has started." The only way Moses could have known that the plague had started was because God told him so, and God wanted him to do something about it.

Also, the mode of atonement to be made was contrary to everything that had been done before. The law says: "Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness."[ 18 ] Yet, there is no mention of any bloody sacrifice being made in this instance. The censor with incense symbolizes the prayers of the saints. We gather this from John's words in the book of Revelation. "The four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb. Each one had a harp and they were holding golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints."[ 19 ] The exceptional command God gives to Moses in this revelation indicates that the Father had in mind the scene which John describes in Heaven, when the Lamb takes the scroll out of the hands of Him who sits on the throne of the universe in order to open the final chapter of world history, the chapter of "the Day of Wrath." What happens here in the desert is a small sample of what will happen at the end of time, when God's wrath will be revealed and when the prayers of the saints will play a decisive role.

The Pulpit Commentary says about this incident: "There was no precedent for making an incense offering after this fashion, but it was on the analogy of the rite performed within the tabernacle on the day of atonement (Levit. xvi.). Whether Moses received any intimation that the wrath might be thus averted, or whether it was the daring thought of a devoted heart when all else failed, it is impossible to say. As it had no precedent, so it never seems to have been repeated; nor is the name or idea of atonement anywhere else connected with the offering of incense apart from the shedding of blood."

Several commentators see in Aaron's activity a proof of the vindication of his priesthood. The fact that his standing between the dead and the living with his censor stayed the plague made him God's man for that time. From Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown's Commentary we copy the following: "The plague seems to have begun in the extremities of the camp. Aaron, in this remarkable act, was a type of Christ. This memorable incident was followed by permanent effects; because it established once and for all the position of the Aaronic priesthood among the national institutions of Israel." Not only did Aaron endanger his own life by running to the place where people mysteriously died without any apparent physical reason, but he exemplified the One who would take upon Himself the punishment for the sin of the world."

Adam Clarke's Commentary draws even more profound lessons from this event by saying: "If Aaron the high priest, with his censer and incense, could disarm the wrath of an insulted, angry Deity, so that a guilty people, who deserved nothing but destruction, should be spared; how much more effectual may we expect the great atonement to be which was made by the Lord Jesus Christ, of whom Aaron was only the type! The sacrifices of living animals pointed out the death of Christ on the cross, the incense, his intercession. Through his death salvation is purchased for the world; by his intercession the offending children of men are spared. Hence, Paul, <Rom. 5:10>, says: 'If, while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved THROUGH HIS LIFE,' i. e., by the prevalence of his continual intercession. <2 Cor. 5:18-19>: 'and all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; to wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them, and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.' "

The saving of lives was caused by, both the offering of the incense, and the speed with which Aaron ran to the place where God's wrath was being revealed. Speed was usually not one of the characteristics of Aaron's office. We can see him move toward the tabernacle and perform his duties with appropriate calm and dignity. But here we read that "Aaron did as Moses said, and ran into the midst of the assembly." This makes this incident so unusual in the history of salvation. God calls to intercessory prayer, as symbolized in the use of the censor, and sometimes He does not give us much time to perform the duties of our royal priesthood.

The picture that Scripture paints of this incident is very moving: "He stood between the living and the dead, and the plague stopped. But 14,700 people died from the plague." We can see Aaron standing stunned, trying to take in what had happened. On one side of him a whole army of dead people, on the other side those who were saved at the last moment. After running in the midst of the assembly, he stands there frozen, and the camera, so to speak, catches him as the horror of it all penetrates to him. Within minutes a group of people, almost the size of one third of the tribe of Reuben had been wiped out. We can understand that Aaron was never the same again after this experience. Being a priest before the Lord is an awesome task; human lives are at stake, and prayers are able to stay the wrath of God.

[ 1 ] Heb. 8:1,2

[ 2 ] See Ex. 32

[ 3 ] II Cor. 2:15,16

[ 4 ] Matt. 5:11,12

[ 5 ] I Pet 2:19,20

[ 6 ] Ps. 3:3

[ 7 ] I Cor. 12:31

[ 8 ] ch. 11:5

[ 9 ] Gen. 18:23-25

[ 10 ] See Num. 20:8-13

[ 11 ] See Lev. 10:1,2

[ 12 ] Heb. 12:28,29

[ 13 ] Col. 2:13-15

[ 14 ] John 12:37

[ 15 ] Rev. 20:10

[ 16 ] Rom. 13:1-5

[ 17 ] Gen. 32:26

[ 18 ] Heb. 9:22

[ 19 ] Rev. 5:8