more blasphemous than high-handed breach of the old Hebrew law, the
providence of God does not punish it? If any one with Christ and His
cross in view is guilty of injustice, or of hatred which is murder,
does he not prove himself unworthy to live in God's world? And why,
then, does he not suffer at once the doom of his rebellion? The
theory of some stern moralists has been that human government should
administer the justice of Heaven and cut off the unbeliever. In
many a notable case this has been done, and has caused a righteous
horror which continues to be felt. But although men cannot safely
undertake the punishment of such offenders, why does not God?
Christ boldly stated that here and now this is not the method of
the Divine government, but that men enjoy the Father's mercy even
when they are unjust, unthankful, and evil. Yet He spoke of judgment
universal--judgment and retribution that shall not miss a single
sinner, a single secret sin. And His view of the theocracy clearly
is that meanwhile God by mercy to the defiant desires to train men
in mercy, by forbearance towards the unthankful and evil commends
to us like patience and endurance. Transgressors are to have their
full opportunity of repentance, to which the very goodness of God
calls them. But justice which delays is not unobservant. Though He
who reigns moves slowly to His end, He will not fail to reach it.
"He hath appointed a day in the which He will judge the world in
righteousness." As for human law, its sphere is fixed. Society must
protect itself against crime, and is to do so in the name of God, in
conformity with the eternal principles of righteousness. The Hebrew
temper may seem to have carried this principle into a range that was
perilous to enter, as in the instance immediately to be considered;
yet the protection of society was even then the immediate motive, not
vain jealousy for the honour of God. For ourselves, we have a duty
which must be done without assumption or hypocrisy.
The various subjects of thought suggested here should be followed
out. For us, they are complicated on the social as well as the
religious side by certain theories that are in vogue. The duty of
civil government, for example, is on one side extended beyond its
proper range by the attempt to give it authority in the domain
of religious truth; on the other hand it is unduly restricted
by toleration of what is against the well-being of society. The
Christian moralist has much to ponder in relation to popular opinions
and the trend of modern legislation.
2. THE SABBATH-BREAKER.--If the actual sequence of events is followed
in the narrative of Numbers, it must have been after the condemnation
of the adult Israelites that judgment of the man who was found
infringing the Sabbath law had to be executed; and some who were
themselves under reprobation took part in convicting and punishing this
offender. There is a difficulty here which on high moral grounds it
is impossible to explain away. Disaffection and revolt had brought on
the mass of the people the sentence of destruction; and this had only
been exchanged on Moses' intercession for the forty years of wandering.
Should not sins that were visited with this penalty have excluded all
who were guilty of them from any judicial act? But the same objection
would, if admitted, prevent all of us from taking part in the execution
of law. Neither the judge nor the jury, neither those who legislate nor
those who administer law, are free from moral fault. The whole system
dealing with crime has this defect; and Israel in the wilderness was
as much entitled as modern society to take in hand the correction of
offenders, the maintenance of public well-being.
The law which had been broken was one specially connected with duty
to God. Sabbath-keeping might indeed seem to belong to worship rather
than to social morality. The seventh day was the Sabbath of Jehovah.
It was to be kept holy to Him, made a delight for His sake. The
statute regarding it belonged to the first table of the Decalogue.
Still, the commandment had a social as well as a religious side. In
goodwill to men Jehovah required the day to be kept holy to Him. Had
one and another like this offender been allowed to set aside the
fourth commandment, the interests of the whole congregation would
soon have suffered. It was for the good of the race, physically as
well as intellectually and spiritually, the Sabbath was to be kept.
Those who guarded the sanctity of the Sabbath were guarding not the
honour of God alone, though they may have thought that the chief
merit of their watchfulness, but the interests of the people, a
precious heritage of the nation.
It is not necessary to maintain that judgment was given by Moses
solely on the ground that the man who gathered sticks on the Sabbath
was an offender against the public well-being. The thought of
Jehovah's "jealousy" was constantly kept before the mind of Israel,
for by that idea, better than any other, beneficent legislation
was supported in a rude age; and judgment no doubt rested mainly
on this. Yet the interference of the people and their share in the
execution of punishment are to be justified by the undoubted fact
that Israel could not afford to let the Sabbath be lost. Even those
who were to a great extent earthly could perceive this. And if the
punishment seems disproportionate, we must remember that it was the
presumptuous temper of the man rather than his actual fault that was
judged criminal. St. James said, no doubt from this point of view,
"Whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he
is become guilty of all." The criminal act was that of breaking down,
with daring hand, the safeguard of social and religious prosperity.
And there is a sense in which without Pharisaism those who are
concerned for the public well-being may still insist on the strict
enforcement of the laws that guard the day of rest. Though all days
are alike sacred to spiritually minded persons, yet bodily health
and mental soundness are bound up more than men in general know with
the Sabbatic interval between labour and labour. The Puritanism
often scoffed at is far more philanthropic than the humanitarianism,
so-called, which derides it. And when any one enforces the duty of
Sabbath-keeping by insisting on God's claim to the seventh day, his
belief is no superstition. Convict him first of advocating what is
against the good of men, irrational, absurd, before venturing to
call him superstitious. If what is advanced as a claim of God can be
proved to be really for the good of men, it is a virtue to insist
that for God's sake as well as the sake of men it should be rendered.
There were persons in our Lord's time who made Sabbath-keeping a
superstition. Against them He testified. But it is in His name who
was the great Friend of men the Sabbath law is now insisted on; and
the day of rest has all the higher sanction that it commemorates His
resurrection from the dead, His promise of that new life which relief
from labour enables us to pursue.
The institution of the Sabbath and the scrupulous observance of it
were, for Israel, and are still for all believers in Divine religion,
most important means of maintaining unity in the faith. Now that many
causes interfere with the simultaneous exhibition of regard for other
symbols of Christian belief, the day of rest and worship gives a
universal opportunity which it would be fatal to neglect. It has the
advantage of beginning to claim men on the ground where religion first
appeals to them, that of God's care for their temporal well-being.
Those with whom religious feeling is quite elementary must see that a
boon of incalculable value is offered in this recurring refreshment
to the wearied body and strained mind. And with progress in religious
culture the benefit of the day of rest is found to advance. The
opportunities of worship, of religious meditation and service, which
it brings will be esteemed as the value of Christian fellowship, the
importance of Christian knowledge, and the duty of Christian endeavour
are successively understood. On all these grounds the Sabbath, or
Lord's Day, is for modern religion, as for that of the old covenant, a
great declaration, a means of unity and development which the spiritual
will earnestly uphold. Let it fail, and distinction between religious
and non-religious will be without a sign. No doubt the reality is more
by far than the symbol. Yet fellowship, for which in many cases the
Sabbath alone gives opportunity, is far more than a symbol; and unity
requires an outward manifestation. Nothing could be more perilous to
the religious life of our people than the tendency, shown by many
who profess Christianity and sanctioned by some of its teachers, to
make the Sabbath a day of self-pleasing, of mere individualism, and
incoherent secularity.
3. THE MEMORIAL TASSELS.--The unique sumptuary law with which the
chapter closes may be regarded as a sequence of the Sabbath-breaker's
conviction. That Israelites might never be without a reminder of
their duty, and of the Divine laws they were scrupulously to observe,
these tassels with a band of blue were to be constantly worn. It
appears to us singular that men should be expected to pay heed to
such mementoes as these. We are apt to say, If the laws of God were
not in their hearts, the _zizith_ would scarcely make them more
attentive; and if they had the laws in their hearts, they would need
no memorials of obligation. But the ornament was something more than
a reminder of duty. It was a badge of honour, and became more so as
the Israelites understood their high position among the peoples. The
_zizith_ would be like an order, a mark of rank; or like the uniform
of his regiment which to the good soldier recalls its history. The
Hebrew would have to live up to his duty as signified by these
attachments of his dress.
And Israelites were to be distinguished by the _zizith_ from those
who were of other races, not under law to Jehovah. Every man who wore
this badge would be able to count on the sympathy of every other
Israelite. The symbol became a means of rousing the _esprit_ of the
nation, and binding it together in a zealous fraternity. The nature
of the badge appears to us peculiar; but the value of it cannot be
denied. The modern peoples, far as they have travelled from the old
ways of the Hebrews, retain the use of symbolic dress, the liking for
ornaments, by which a man's life may be known.
The name _zizith_ is derived from a word meaning blossom. The tassel
was formed of twisted threads bound by a cord or ribbon of blue to
the garment. It was the blossom of the robe, so to speak, hanging by
a blue stem. The ornament is again mentioned in Deut. xxii. 12, where
it has another name, _gedilim_, enlargements. With extraordinary
pride the Jews of our own time still wear the _talith_, which is a
fantastical development of the _zizith_ of Numbers. "The rabbins
observe that each string consisted of eight threads, which, with
the number of knots and the numerical value of the letters in the
word, make 613, which, according to them, is the exact number of the
precepts in the law." The Pharisees in Christ's time enlarged their
phylacteries, displaying superfluously the proofs of their Hebrew
orthodoxy and zeal. It is the danger of all symbols. In the youth of
a people they have meaning; they express fact, they give honour. The
Israelite wearing his felt himself reminded, put on his honour, not
to go about "according to his own heart and his own eyes by which he
used to go a-whoring." But afterwards the zeal became that of pride,
the symbol a mere amulet or a token of self-sufficiency. The Jew of
to-day is partly kept separate by his talith, and because he wears
it, feels himself in touch with the fathers and heroes and prophets
of his people. But he also feels, what is not always good, his
remoteness from heathen and Christian "dogs."
And Christian symbols, the few sanctioned by Scripture, the others
that have crept into use in the course of history, bring with their
use a similar danger. In many cases they are signs of privilege
rather than memorials of duty. They minister to pride, rather than
stimulate zeal in the service of God and men. The crucifix itself,
with consummate superstition, is worn and kissed as a talisman.
FOOTNOTES:
[6] Sayce, "The Higher Criticism and the Verdict of the Monuments,"
p. 359.
[7] See Keil and Delitzsch _in loco_.
XIV
_KORAH, DATHAN, AND ABIRAM_
NUMBERS xvi., xvii
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 xxvii. 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 vv. 10, 11, that all the two hundred and fifty
were Levites; but this is precluded by the earlier statement that
they were princes of the congregation, called to the assembly. So
far as we can gather, the tribe of Levi did not supply princes, "men
of renown," in this sense. While Moses deals with Korah and his
company, Dathan, Abiram, and On, who belong to the tribe of Reuben,
stand in the background with their grievance. Invited to state it,
they complain that Moses has not only brought the congregation
out of a land "flowing with milk and honey," to kill them in the
wilderness, failing to give them the inheritance he promised; but
he has made himself a prince over the host, determining everything
without consulting the heads of the tribes. They ask if he means
"to put out the eyes of these men,"--that is, to blind them to the
real purpose he has in view, whatever it is, or to make them his
slaves after the Babylonian fashion, by actually boring out the eyes
of each tenth man, perhaps. The two hundred and fifty are called
by Moses to bring their censers and the incense and fire they have
been using, that Jehovah may signify whether He chooses to be served
by them as priests, or by Aaron. The offering of incense over, the
decree against the whole host as concerned in this revolt is made
known, and Moses intercedes for the people. Then the Voice commands
that all the people shall separate themselves from the "tabernacle"
of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, apparently as if some tent of worship
had been erected in rivalry of the true tabernacle. Dathan and Abiram
are not at the "tabernacle," but at some little distance, in tents of
their own. The people remove from the "tabernacle of Korah, Dathan,
and Abiram," and on the terrible invocation of judgment pronounced
by Moses, the ground cleaves asunder and all the men that appertain
unto Korah go down alive into the pit. Afterwards, it is said, "fire
came forth from the Lord and devoured the two hundred and fifty men
that offered the incense." "The men that appertained unto Korah" may
be the presumptuous Levites, most closely identified with his revolt.
But the two hundred and fifty consumed by the fire are not said to
have been swallowed by the cleaving earth; their censers are taken up
"out of the burning," as devoted or sacred, and beaten into plates
for a covering of the altar.
On the morrow the whole congregation, even more disaffected than
before, is in a state of tumult. The cry is raised that Moses and
Aaron "have killed the people of Jehovah." Forthwith a plague,
the sign of Divine anger, breaks out. Atonement is made by Aaron,
who runs quickly with his burning censer "into the midst of the
assembly," and "stands between the dead and the living." But fourteen
thousand seven hundred die before the plague is stayed. And the
position of Aaron as the acknowledged priest of Jehovah is still
further confirmed. Rods or twigs are taken, one for each tribe, all
the tribes having been implicated in the revolt; and these rods are
laid up in the tent of meeting. When a day has passed, the rod of
Aaron for the tribe of Levi is found to have put forth buds and borne
almonds. The close of the whole series of events is an exclamation of
amazed anxiety by all the people: "Behold, we perish, we are undone,
we are all undone. Every one that cometh near unto the tabernacle of
Jehovah dieth: shall 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,[8] the
rebellion proceeds from the Reubenites, and is directed against Moses
as leader and judge of the people. The historical basis of this is
dimly discerned to be the fall of Reuben from its old place at the
head of the brother tribes. Out of this story, says Wellhausen,
at some time or other not specified, "when the people of the
congregation, _i.e._, of the Church, have once come on the scene,"
there arises a second version. The author of the agitation is now
Korah, a prince of the tribe of Judah, and he rebels not only against
Moses but against Moses and Aaron as representing the priesthood.
"The jealousy of the secular grandees is now directed against the
class of hereditary priests instead of against the extraordinary
influence on the community of a heaven-sent hero." Then there is a
third addition which "belongs likewise to the Priestly Code, but
not to its original contents." In this, Korah the prince of the
tribe of Judah is replaced by another Korah, head of a "post-exilic
Levitical family"; and "the contest between clergy and aristocracy is
transformed into a domestic strife between the higher and inferior
clergy which was no doubt raging in the time of the narrator." All
this is supposed to be a natural and easy explanation of what would
otherwise be an "insoluble enigma." We ask, however, at what period
any family of Judah would be likely to claim the priesthood, and at
what post-exilic period there was "no doubt" a strife between the
higher and inferior clergy. Nor is there any account here of the two
hundred and fifty princes of the congregation, with their partially
developed ritual antagonistic to that of the tabernacle.
We have seen that according to the narrative of Numbers seventy
elders of the tribes were appointed to aid Moses in bearing the
heavy burden of administration, and were endowed with the gift of
prophecy that they might the more impressively wield authority in
the host. In the first instance, these men might be zealous helpers
of Moses, but they proved, like the rest, angry critics of his
leadership when the spies returned with their evil report. They were
included with the other men of the tribes in the doom of the forty
years' wandering, and might easily become movers of sedition. When
the ark was stationed permanently at Kadesh, and the tribes spread
themselves after the manner of shepherds over a wide range of the
surrounding district, we can easily see that the authority of the
seventy would increase in proportion to the need for direction felt
in the different groups to which they belonged. Many of the scattered
companies too were so far from the tabernacle that they might desire
a worship of their own, and the original priestly function of the
heads of tribes, if it had lapsed, might in this way be revived.
Although there were no altars, yet with censers and incense one of
the highest rites of worship might be observed.
Again, the period of inaction must have been galling to many who
conceived themselves quite capable of making a successful assault on
the inhabitants of Canaan, or otherwise securing a settled place of
abode for Israel. And the tribe of Reuben, first by birthright, and
apparently one of the strongest, would take the lead in a movement to
set aside the authority of Moses. We have also to keep in mind that
though Moses had pressed the Kenizzites to join the march and relied
on their fidelity, the presence in the camp of one like Hobab, who was
an equal not a vassal of Moses, must have been a continual incentive
to disaffection. He and his troops had their own notions, we may
believe, as to the delay of forty years, and would very likely deny its
necessity. They would also have their own cultus, and religiously, as
well as in other ways, show an independence which encouraged revolt.
Once more, as to the Levites, it might seem unfair to them that Aaron
and his two sons should have a position so much higher than theirs.
They had to do many offices in connection with sacrifice, and other
parts of the holy service. On them, indeed, fell the burden of the
duties, and the ambitious might expect to force their way into the
higher office of the priesthood, at a time when rebellion against
authority was coming to a head. We may suppose that Korah and his
company of Levites, acting partly for themselves, partly in concert
with the two hundred and fifty who had already assumed the right to
burn incense, agreed to make their demand in the first instance, that
as Levites they should be admitted priests. This would prepare the way
for the princes of the tribes to claim sacerdotal rights according
to the old clan idea. And at the same time, the priority of Reuben
would be another point, insistence upon which would strike at the
power of Moses. If the princes of Reuben had gone so far as to erect a
"tabernacle" or _mishcan_ for their worship, that may have been, for
the occasion, made the headquarters of revolt, perhaps because Reuben
happened at the time to be nearest the encampment of the Levites.
A widespread rebellion, an organised rebellion, not homogeneous, but
with many elements in it tending to utter confusion, is what we see.
Suppose it to have succeeded, the unity of worship would have been
destroyed completely. Each tribe with its own cultus would have gone
its own way so far as religion was concerned. In a very short time
there would have been as many debased cults as there were wandering
companies. Then the claim of autonomy, if not of right to lead the
tribes, made on behalf of Reuben, involved a further danger. Moses had
not only the sagacity but the inspiration which ought to have commanded
obedience. The princes of Reuben had neither. Whether all under the
lead of Reuben or each tribe led by its own princes, the Israelites
would have travelled to disaster. Futile attempts at conquest, strife
or alliance with neighbouring peoples, internal dissension, would have
worn the tribes piecemeal away. The dictatorship of Moses, the Aaronic
priesthood, and the unity of worship stood or fell together. One of the
three removed, the others would have given way. But the revolutionary
spirit, springing out of ambition and a disaffection for which there
was no excuse, was blind to consequences. And the stern suppression of
this revolt, at whatever cost, was absolutely needful if there was to
be any future for Israel.