Have you ever been part of a rebellion? In your family, work, church, city, or country?

Numbers 16:1-14 The Rebellion of Korah

Day 63. We made it to nine weeks of “please stay at home” advice, and in many cases, required compliance. That’s equivalent to a whole summer’s vacation for students. Got word yesterday that the U.S. and Canada are negotiating a further extension to the ban on non-essential cross-border travel. That means we can’t go see our family in the south. The two camps on the seriousness of the virus, the best way to get over it, and even on what caused it and who knew what when continue to fight each other in every way they can think of.  Schools in Ontario were officially declared closed until the fall, so parents have another three and a half months to ‘enjoy’ their children at home, or not. We press on studying God’s Word and finding new gems every day, even in the otherwise unexciting book of Numbers. Read on.

The Passage

16 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 action, ² and they rose up before Moses, ^[a]together with some of the sons of Israel, two hundred and fifty leaders of the congregation, ^[b]chosen in the assembly, men of renown. ³ They assembled together against Moses and Aaron, and said to them, “^[c]You have gone far enough, for all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the Lord is in their midst; so why do you exalt yourselves above the assembly of the Lord?”

⁴ When Moses heard this, he fell on his face; ⁵ and he spoke to Korah and all his company, saying, “Tomorrow morning the Lord will show who is His, and who is holy, and will bring him near to Himself; even the one whom He will choose, He will bring near to Himself. ⁶ Do this: take censers for yourselves, Korah and all ^[d]your company, ⁷ and put fire in them, and lay incense upon them in the presence of the Lord tomorrow; and the man whom the Lord chooses shall be the one who is holy. ^[e]You have gone far enough, you sons of Levi!”

⁸ Then Moses said to Korah, “Hear now, you sons of Levi, ⁹ is it ^[f]not enough for you that the God of Israel has separated you from the rest of the congregation of Israel, to bring you near to Himself, to do the service of the tabernacle of the Lord, and to stand before the congregation to minister to them; ¹⁰ and that He has brought you near, Korah, and all your brothers, sons of Levi, with you? And are you seeking for the priesthood also?¹¹ Therefore you and all your company are gathered together against the Lord; but as for Aaron, ^[g]who is he that you grumble against him?”

¹² Then Moses sent ^[h]a summons to Dathan and Abiram, the sons of Eliab; but they said, “We will not come up. ¹³ Is it ^[i]not enough that you have brought us up out of a land flowing with milk and honey to have us die in the wilderness, but you would also lord it over us? ¹⁴ Indeed, you have not brought us into a land flowing with milk and honey, nor have you given us an inheritance of fields and vineyards. Would you ^[j]put out the eyes of ^[k]these men? We will not come up!”

Footnotes

1. Numbers 16:2 Lit and men from
2. Numbers 16:2 Lit called ones of
3. Numbers 16:3 Lit It is much for you
4. Numbers 16:6 Lit his
5. Numbers 16:7 Lit It is much for you
6. Numbers 16:9 Or too little for you
7. Numbers 16:11 Lit what
8. Numbers 16:12 Lit to call
9. Numbers 16:13 Lit a little thing
10. Numbers 16:14 Lit bore out
11. Numbers 16:14 Lit those

Thoughts on the Passage

We note that the rebellious group was not just Korah (from the tribe of the Levites), but he was joined by Dathan and Abiram (from the tribe of Reuben). But these three were able to incite 250 others, all ‘leaders’ of the people to rise up and assemble against Moses and Aaron. It is amazing how just one disgruntled person, can convince two others, and how three can convince 250 other men who were ‘renown’ amongst the people to act in opposition to leaders appointed by God. [By the way, Korah is also mentioned in the book of Jude, verse 11. David Guzik points out that Both Moses and Korah were descended from Kohath, but by different sons (Moses through Amram {Numbers 26:58-59}, and Korah through Izhar). Also as Matthew Henry points out, On is mentioned (verse 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.]

Henry further notes that “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 neighbor, who is in danger of being infected by him.’”

They told Moses and Aaron that they had over-extended their power and authority, and it appears their claim on being ‘holy’ and that “God was with them alone”. The rebels felt every single person in the congregation was holy and that God was with them too. So they weren’t pleased with the idea that Moses and Aaron were ‘exalting’ themselves above them. This accusation of pride and exclusionary leadership according to David Guzik was made in public, playing to the audience of 250 leaders. Rebels often play to an audience. In fact, we see it daily from our politicians, especially those in opposition to an elected administration. We note, like Guzik, that with these 250 leaders, Korah himself was, from a human perspective, successful. How often do we get duped by a humanly successful leader when in fact that leader may take us down the wrong path? Once again, the Jim Jones Jonestown, Guyana, massacre in 1978, comes to mind.

[The rebels also felt there was too much nepotism going on – you know, Moses getting the cushy job for Aaron his brother, and Miriam, his sister, having a special role with respect to the tabernacle. People grumble the same way today when they see a ‘family’ doing well. And I have no problem with that as long as appointed family members have the ability to do the job they need to do well.]

My guess is that when Moses fell on his face in verse 4, he prayed.  He always prayed when faced with opposition or challenges like this one. We don’t know how long of a break there was between verse 4 and verse 5 when he replies to his accusers.

And now comes the predecessor of what I call the “fire from heaven Elijah test” as we read in I Kings 18. Moses tells Korah and his gang that “in the morning God will show who is His”. In the morning God would show whom He draws to Himself; whom He chooses. Robert Jamieson reminds us that “in the morning” is the usual time of meeting in the East for the settlement of public affairs.

Moses must have been very sure of himself to acclaim this future act of God’s. But then again we must remember that Moses had seen the power of God over and over again in Egypt and so far in the wilderness. We also know that God chose Moses to complete a very special assignment and He gave Moses the right to speak for Him, telling the Isralites long ago (in Exodus 3) that He Who calls Himself the “I AM WHO I AM” has sent him (Moses) to them. As I read these thoughts now, I am reminded of the fact that Moses was “sent by God” to the people to deliver them from Egypt and their slavery. So likewise, Jesus was sent by God to His people years later to deliver us from our sin and slavery to it. Moses was no ordinary man; he could be sure of God’s support.

And with that confidence he tells the rebels to take censers (a container, usually covered, in which incense is burned, especially during religious services), fill them with incense, and set them on fire before the Lord, and see what happens. And Moses ends his little speech with an admonition to Korah and company, especially since Korah was a Levite. They had, in the words of Moses, “gone too far”. Perhaps he was worried that he could no longer expect God to forgive them again. They had already cashed in their last chip. I have a relative who feels like that – they feel they have sinned so often and so badly, that there is no way God can forgive them. That must be a terrible feeling. Unfortunately, some who feel that way also use it as an excuse never to come to grips with the issue of their relationship with God. All the rest of us can do is continue to pray.

[As I was doing this study, my wife just informed me about how miraculously God worked in the lives a couple we were praying for. The expression used was the sincere attempt at a change came “out of the blue”. And God does indeed work out of the blue. Moses knew that.  We believe it. Let’s keep looking for God to work “out of the blue” for us and for those we are praying for.]

Moses now more directly addresses Korah and those that were from the tribe of Reuben. How could these men not consider it sufficient that God Himself had separated them from the other tribes, had drawn them close to Him, to serve the Lord in the tabernacle, and to minister before the people? The Kohathites had, according to Guzik, the most exalted duty among the Levites; their charge was to carry the most holy things of the temple, after Aaron and his sons had covered them with the specially prepared coverings (Numbers 4:15). Moses tried to expose a possible desire of Korah himself and those close to him – the attainment of the office of ‘priests’ not just helpers in the Tent.

If that was the case, Moses indicates he could see why they are grumbling against the Lord, and perhaps even himself.  But what did these people have to grumble against Aaron himself?  There was no response that we know of. I love what Guzik says about Korah and how he would have led Israel as compared to Moses:

It is unbelievably easy for the Korahs of this world to sit back and say, "If I was leading the nation at Kadesh Barnea, I would have done thus and so." But Korah was not leading the nation, and men of his type rarely do. God rarely puts the Monday-morning quarterbacks, the backseat drivers, in positions of real leadership - except as a chastisement, to show them just how difficult leadership really is - and that perfect leadership, like perfect anything, is impossible.

Can we remember that as we watch rebels today? Can we remember that as we watch world politicians today? Can we apply that to our own leadership or rebellious thoughts, words, and actions today?

After that, Moses calls for the two leaders in the gang from Reuben’s tribe, Dathan and Abiram. But they refuse to go and see Moses, complaining further that not only had Moses taken them from “a land flowing with milk and honey” (boy, was Egypt ever glorified in their minds – remember, memory makes the mind murky, it colors the past), and now he was “lording it over them”. They felt cheated out of the promised land, the real land flowing with milk and honey and out of their inheritance of fields and vineyards. They accused Moses of wanting to “bore out” their eyes. So they refused to go and see him. Wow.

This was a total defiance of Moses’ authority and leadership. They would only follow and listen to God. What they missed was the very fact that Moses was God’s appointee. It would have been one thing if Moses had sinned. It is another thing to make up accusations against God’s anointed and appointed. In cases like this we must always check the hearts – both of the accusers and the accused. And then speak up – either in support of those who rightly judge or in defense of the one being falsely accused (as in this case). Our silence is not only a weakness, but it may be a sin.

In our next study, we will see how Moses and God both react. Hope you caught all the lesson gems that God gave us here through this rebellion.

It would be great if you would share your thoughts or questions on this blog in the comments section below or on social media.

In God's Service? What Are You Wearing with Honor?

The garments and other accessories of the High Priest and other Priests

Exodus 39:1-31:

This is an account of the following:

Verses 1-7, the making of the ephod or sleeveless garment as specified earlier in Exodus 28:5-14.

Verses 8-21, the making of the breastplate for the high priest as specified earlier in Exodus 28:15-29.

Verses 22-26, the making of the robe for the high priest as specified earlier in Exodus 28:31-35.

Verses 27-29, the making of the tunics, turbans, sashes, trousers, for all the priests as specified in Exodus 28:39-43.

Verses 30-31, the making of the turban for the high priest as specified in Exodus 28:36-38.

Thoughts on the Passage

As I have been studying these chapters describing all the work done on the Tabernacle and how it followed the earlier instructions given by God to Moses, I can’t help but think about the fact that God wants us to follow His instructions about life in general. He has given us a combination “designer’s and manufacturer’s manual” in the form of His Word, the Bible. God knew that there was no way that man could follow the “maintenance schedule” required which was given in the form of the hundreds of Old Testament Laws. So, in the New Testament, He provides for each of us, a means by which we could have life and have it more abundantly and eternally – He gives the Ultimate Care package in the person of His own Son, Jesus Christ.

With respect to our current passage in Exodus, Robert Jamieson points out that gold metal was actually beaten with a hammer in thin plates or sheets (verse 3), then cut somehow into long strips, and rounded into filaments or threads.  (This has been observed in the presence of cloth with which ancient mummies have been wrapped.)

In verse 30, we read of the inscription on the plate of the holy crown. It was the text says like the engravings on a signet-ring worn both by ancient and modern Egyptians. The inscription contained the owner’s name along with a sacred symbol intimating that the wearer was the servant of God and/or expressed his trust in God. Jamieson believes that what we have here alludes to that practice and he invites us to compare the thought with what John wrote in his gospel, chapter 3, verse 33.

Matthew Henry has several things to say about this passage.

He points out the fact that the priests’ garments were called “clothes of service” or “for ministering in the holy place” (vs. 1). Several thoughts come to mind here.  First, are we should we have special attire for those that minister in our local church?  Second, is our local church (if it is represented by the Tabernacle), a “holy place” as referred to here? Clearly our modern thinking, as a result of our interpretation of the New Testament and the New Covenant through Christ, would lead us to say that the answer to both those questions is ‘no’. Many congregations today struggle with both these questions even though they may feel they don’t. However, the fact that “anything goes” is not readily the modus operandi with respect to what a minister wears or does not wear (there is a limit) or with respect to what can be done in the church building (there is a limit here as well).

Henry points out that what is more important is that these clothes are clothes of honor and we need to remember that “upon whom honor is put service is expected.” He quotes Revelation 7:13,15 which says that those that are arrayed in white robes “are before the throne of God and serve Him day and night in His temple.”  He reminds us that holy garments were not made for us to sleep in, but to do service in, and that the Son of Man Himself “came not to be ministered to, but to minister”.

Secondly, Henry reminds us that given the repetition and the emphasis on everything being constructed or made exactly as God had earlier specified, everything was by divine appointment. And he says, this “is an intimation to all the Lord’s ministers to make the Word of God their rule in all their ministrations, and to act in observance of and obedience to the command of God.”  That’s the bottom line.

Given the richness and splendid of these garments, it is easy for us to see how this was carried over into garments of not only more modern services of the Jewish faith, but also in our Roman Catholic, Greek and Eastern Orthodox, and the Anglican or Episcopalian traditions. In all these cases, the church tried to copy the material or physical aspects of worship.  Now, however, as we are under the Gospel and the ministration of the Spirit, following such traditions is certainly not necessary and perhaps inappropriate. To Henry, doing so, that is following such habits may “betray ‘the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free’, and to entangle the church again in the bondage of those carnal ordinances which were imposed only till the time of reformation.”  Well, we certainly know where he stands.  Each of us will have to make up our own minds of course, but for me, this is certainly not a hill I want to die on.

Matthew Henry does take us back to the main foreshadowing of this chapter’s contents. “Christ is our great high-priest; when He undertook the work of our redemption, He put on the clothes of service – He arrayed Himself with the gifts and graces of the Spirit. . ..  And (lastly) He crowned himself with ‘holiness to the Lord’, consecrating His whole undertaking to the honor of His Father’s holiness.”

But there’s a message for us as well. “True believers,” he says, “are spiritual priests. The clean linen with which all their clothes of service must be made is ‘the righteousness of saints’ (Rev. 19:8), and ‘Holiness to the Lord’ must be so written upon their foreheads that all who converse with them may see, and say, that they bear the image of God’s holiness, and are devoted to the praise of it.

How are our clothes of service? Are we wearing them with honor? What do others see when they talk with us? Whose image are we bearing? What are we devoted to?

It would be great if you would share your thoughts or questions on this blog in the comments section below or on social media.

Mirror, Mirror, Going from My Wall to HIS Tent

The Bronze Laver

Exodus 38:8:

Morever, he made the laver of bronze with its base of bronze, from the mirrors of the serving women who served at the doorway of the tent of meeting.

Thoughts on the Passage

This is the basin that held the water for the ceremonial washing, in accordance with the original instructions of Exodus 30:17-21 where there is no mention of the use of mirrors. Here in chapter 38, we learn that the basin’s material came in part of from polished metal mirrors, owned by the women of the camp. David Guzak postulates that “It is wonderful to think that these women gave up their ability to measure their own physical beauty to make this reservoir. . .. By analogy, it may be said that some [people today] are so focused on looking at themselves that they fail to look to Jesus. It is always time to surrender such a mirror to Jesus.”

He says, “one may say that believers experience the washing of water by the Word (Ephesians 5:26), and that the Word of God is like a mirror (James 1;22-25).

Guzak then goes on to quote others who have offered analogies on this verse. For example, a certain Morgan is said to have written, “It is in the beauty of holiness men must worship, and by the surrender of everything of the flesh.”

Another commentator by the name of Trapp adds, “Let those who view themselves oft in their looking-glasses take his counsel who said, ‘Art thou fair? Be not like an Egyptian temple, varnish without and vermin within. Art thou foul? Let they soul be like a rich pearl in a rude shell.’”

From the text, we learn that there seemed to be a group of women in Israel who served God by regularly gathering to help the priests and the work of the Tabernacle. We see this in practice even today in many of our Protestant churches.  I have also witnessed it in the Greek Orthodox religion.

Guzak says the verb used here and translated ‘minister’ is rare and interesting. It is used in only one other place to refer to women in the service of the sanctuary (see I Samuel 2:22). He says quoting Cole, it really means “’organized in bands for war’, but it is used of ordinary Levitical service (see Numbers 4:23).”

Of course, when we read the I Samuel reference, we can see that all good things, including those intended for God’s service, can be misused. Hopefully, this was not the case at the time of the construction of the Tabernacle.

Robert Jamieson adds to our knowledge by saying, “It was customary for the Egyptian women to carry mirrors with them to the temples; and whether by taking the looking glasses of the Hebrew women Moses designed to put it out of their power to follow a similar practice at the Tabernacle, or whether the supply of brass from other sources in the camp was exhausted, it is interesting to learn how zealously and to a vast extent they surrendered those valued accompaniments of the female [toiletries]”.

Guzak also quotes Hengstenberg who suggests that these women “at the door” were not priestesses but women of pious character and influence, who frequented the courts of the sacred building (see Luke 2:37), and whose parting with their mirrors, like the cutting the hair of the Nazarites, was their renouncing the world for a season.”

Matthew Henry takes us one step further in his commentary on this verse. He suggests this laver holding the water for the priests to wash in when they went in to minister signifies, “the provision that is made in the gospel of Christ for the cleansing of our souls from the moral pollution of sin by the merit and grace of Christ, that we may be fit to serve the holy God in holy duties.” And thus, he says, the refence to the “looking-glasses” or mirrors of the women.

Henry analyzes the whole occasion of the women parting with their finest mirrors. Some women may admire their own beauty, are in love with their own shadow, and make the putting on of apparel their chief adorning by which they value and recommend themselves (do we know any such people – for I daresay, males could also easily be like this – in Hollywood and elsewhere) – these people Henry says can but ill spare their looking-glasses. And then he adds, “yet these women (in our text) offered them to God.”

He goes on to suggest two possible reasons as to why:

1.     In token of their repentance for the former abuse of them (the mirrors), to the support of their pride and vanity; now that they were convinced of their folly, and had devoted themselves to the service of God at the door of the Tabernacle, they thus threw away that which, though lawful and useful in itself, yet had been an occasion of sin to them. Thus Mary Magdalene, who had been a sinner, when she became a penitent wiped Christ’s feet with her hair.  Or,

2.     In token of their great zeal for the work of the Tabernacle; rather than the workmen should want brass, or not have of the best, they would part with their mirrors, though they could not do well without them. God’s service and glory must always be preferred by us before any satisfactions or accommodations of our own. Let us never complain of the want of that which we may honor God by parting with.

Henry suggests that the mirrors were either joined together or molten down and cast anew. But his guess is that the basin was so brightly burnished that the sides of it still served for mirrors, “that the priests, when they came to wash, might there see their faces, and so discover the spots, to wash them clean.”

He goes on to say, “Note, in the washing of repentance, there is need of the looking-glass of self-examination. The Word of God is a glass, in which we may see our own faces (see James 1:23); and with it we must compare our own hearts and lives, that, finding out our blemishes, we may wash with particular sorrow, and application of the blood of Christ to our souls. Usually the more particular we are in the confession of sin the more comfort we have in the sense of the pardon.”

Isn’t it amazing how much we can squeeze out of one verse of Scripture?  The gems are always there for us if we want to dig.  The bottom line for us is this – God first, our ‘image’ last.

It would be great if you would share your thoughts or questions on this blog in the comments section below or on social media.