The Southside Rebellion

Distrust of those who are in charge is a widespread phenomenon. It is easy to stir up dissension against those in authority, especially when life is difficult and progress is slow. The fans of professional sports teams with losing records often want the managers fired. Aspiring politicians regularly harp on economic difficulties as they attempt to unseat the incumbent. Sometimes the criticism goes deeper and seeks to overturn the existing order completely and replace it with a new and different authority structure. There are indeed times when a change in personnel or the system is justified. Many such revolts, however, are generated by the wrong motivations and aimed at the wrong targets.


KORAH’S COMPLAINT

Numbers 16 shows us just such a revolt against the leadership in Israel. It was a revolt that combined together two distinct groups of people. On the one hand there was a group made up of Korah and the Levites, while on the other were Dathan and Abiram, who were Reubenites, along with 250 chiefs of the community (vv. 1, 2). Each of these groups had its own distinct target within the authority structures of Israel. Korah and the Levites challenged the religious leadership of Aaron, while Dathan and Abiram with their followers assaulted the civil leadership of Moses. It is not perhaps coincidental that these two groups rebelled together because the Kohathite Levites, from whom Korah came, camped to the south of the tabernacle, on the same side as the Reubenites (2:10; 3:29). We could therefore call this incident “The Southside Rebellion.”

The first volley in the assault came from Korah and the Levites. They said to Moses and Aaron: “You have gone too far! For all in the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the LORD is among them. Why then do you exalt yourselves above the assembly of the LORD? (v. 3). They sound thoroughly modern in their denunciation of the narrowness of Moses’ religion. You can almost hear them say, “I like to think of God as a kind and welcoming God, whom anyone can approach at any time.” However, their argument here is a classic case of a false conclusion constructed on a true premise. It was certainly true that the whole community of Israel was holy: God had called them to be “a kingdom of priests” (Exodus 19:6). It was also true that the Lord was with the Israelites: he had promised to dwell in the midst of them and be their God (Exodus 29:45). In fact, those were precisely the points that the Lord himself had underlined in the regulations concerning tassels at the end of the previous chapter. The tassels were designed to remind each Israelite of their holy status and calling as part of a nation of priests, consecrated to God (15:40) and of his commitment to be present with them (15:41). Yet that high calling on the life of every Israelite did not mean religious egalitarianism, in which everyone had precisely the same status and responsibility before the Lord. There was still an authority structure set in place by God, in which those he had chosen and called had leadership positions.

The truth that a common high calling from God does not eliminate distinctions within society should not have come as a surprise to the wilderness people of God. They should have remembered the intense care with which the Lord arranged their stations around the tabernacle in the opening four chapters of the book of Numbers. There the Lord assigned each tribe and family to a particular place in his economy. Some were assigned places of greater honor (and greater responsibility) in his service, while others had lesser roles. Those places did not necessarily reflect natural precedence or personal giftedness. In some cases, as we saw, past sin or faithfulness had an ongoing impact on a family’s destiny, and yet the decisive feature in every case was the Lord’s will. The Lord assigned to all their place in his community, and to rebel against that structure was to rebel against the Lord.

The rebellion in Numbers 16 is exactly that—a frontal assault on the order established by God at the time of the census. That becomes clear when you look more closely at those taking part. The ranks of those rebelling are drawn from the first of the Levites to be counted, the Kohathites (4:1–3), the first of the people to be counted—the Reubenites (1:20, 21), and those who were doing the counting—the leaders of the community (neśîê hāēdâ; 4:34). What is particularly striking about this group is that the rebellion does not come from the lowest rungs of Israelite society but from the higher rungs. Bearing in mind that status around the tabernacle goes downward as you travel clockwise, from east to south to west to north, it is noteworthy that this is not a northside but a southside rebellion. It is not those at the bottom of the heap who rebel against God’s order but those who are close to the top and who think they ought themselves to be at the top. This marks an escalation from the earlier grumbling that originated among the marginal riff-raff (11:4): now grumbling has infected the center of the camp.

This fact further highlights the deceptive agenda in Korah’s speech. As a southsider, part of the leading clan of the Levites, he didn’t really want all social order eliminated: he would actually have had more to lose than most Israelites from such an egalitarian leveling. While declaring all Israelites equally sacred before the Lord, what he really wanted was access for himself to the group that would be above the rest, the priesthood (16:10). Likewise, the Reubenites held a privileged place in the Israelite community; yet that was not enough for them. It still rankled them that their premier place as firstborn of Jacob’s sons had been stripped away because of Reuben’s sins. Like the pigs in George Orwell’s novel Animal Farm, the southsiders wanted a society in which everyone was equal, with some people (themselves) being “more equal” than others.


MOSES’ RESPONSE

Moses’ response to this rebellion was to fall down on his face, a posture of submission before the Lord and of appeal for divine assistance.2 This is how Moses responded to several of Israel’s rebellions in the book of Numbers (14:5; 16:4; 20:6), which itself was a mark of his meekness. Even when he himself was under attack, he didn’t immediately lash out at those responsible but instead first took his concerns to the Lord. This is a model for all leaders who find themselves under attack. Such assaults are an almost inevitable part of ministry, as people who are disgruntled with the leadership attack it verbally and in written form. It is easy to respond in similar fashion, but that simply escalates the conflict. It is far better to take the complaints before the Lord and fall down on your face before him. Sometimes there will be sufficient truth behind the allegations, however exaggerated their tone, that repentance on the part of the leaders will be necessary. At other times the allegations will be completely unfounded, but even then it is best to place the matter in the Lord’s hands rather than seeking to respond on our own.

When Moses did respond, it was with a challenge to Korah to put his claims to the test and let the Lord demonstrate whom he had chosen to draw near to him as a priest. Korah and his followers were instructed to come before the Lord the next day with incense burners and fire, and then the Lord would show everyone who his chosen priest was (vv. 6, 7). The form of the test should have sobered Korah and his followers, for it should have reminded them of the fate of Nadab and Abihu. Those sons of Aaron were legitimate priests who were allowed to burn incense before the Lord, yet they made the mistake of being careless about where the fire to ignite the incense came from. They used unauthorized fire—fire that was not from the altar—and they paid for their mistake with their lives (Leviticus 10:1–3). If that was God’s attitude to those who were authorized to approach him when they were careless, what will happen to those who approach him presumptuously? How will they escape? Their ultimate fate, being consumed by fire from the Lord (16:35), should be no surprise to those who have followed Israel’s story carefully thus far.

Moses also uncovered the true nature of the target of their rebellion: it was not Aaron but the Lord himself they were challenging (v. 11). As Levites, the Lord had assigned them a position of honor and responsibility, doing the work of the tabernacle and ministering among the community (v. 9). Yet because they were not content with the place they had been assigned, Korah and his followers were seeking a place they had not been assigned—namely, the priesthood.


THE DESIRE FOR LEADERSHIP

The desire for a leadership position can sometimes be a dangerous thing. The humorist Douglas Adams observed in The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, “Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made president should on no account be allowed to do the job.” In other words, those who desire most intensely the ability to wield power are also the most likely not to wield it well. This can also be true in the church. Some people aspire to positions of authority in order to lord it over others, not so they can serve others. If Korah’s and the Levites’ desire had simply been to serve the Lord and his people, their present position would have given them plenty of opportunities to do so. They didn’t need to be priests to be servants. However, they thought that the position of the priests had more prestige and standing than theirs did (not to mention more income), and so they coveted it. In the process, though, they were rebelling not just against Aaron and the other priests but against the Lord who had assigned Aaron and his family to that position.

The fact that there is an authority structure set in place by God is true in his New Testament people as well as in Old Testament Israel. God promised his people in Jeremiah 3:15 that in the days to come, “I will give you shepherds after my own heart, who will lead you with knowledge and understanding.” This promise has been fulfilled in the church in the provision of elders to lead God’s people as shepherds. So in 1 Peter 5:2, 3, Peter appealed to the elders of the flock to which he was writing that they should “Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care … not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock” (NIV). Likewise, Paul charged the Ephesian elders, “Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood” (Acts 20:28). God has thus appointed a structure in the church, with leaders and followers; the church is not a democracy. The elders are to be leaders in the church, acting as shepherds of his flock. They are to guide and direct the flock from the front, leading the way rather than lording it over the sheep in their common calling as disciples of Jesus.

If this is true, then we need to be similarly careful about those who desire leadership positions in the church. It is certainly not wrong to aspire to lead God’s people. In fact, Paul commends just such a desire in 1 Timothy 3:1. Yet those who desire to lead should be examined and tested, not just so their abilities and gifts can be discerned, but so others can discern as far as possible their hearts and motives. Character is far more crucial than knowledge or gifting, important though those are. Do such persons simply long for the prestige of the title of elder or pastor, or do they have a genuine desire to serve God and his people? Have they demonstrated that servant attitude already, doing the work of ministry without the title? Are they as ready and eager to do the most humble aspects of the work of the church—setting up and taking down chairs, serving refreshments, visiting the sick and elderly—as they are for positions in the public eye? Finally and most profoundly, is the mark of God’s call to ministry evident in their lives, so that God’s people have been convinced they fit the Biblical qualifications? It is a fearful responsibility to lead God’s people, and not one to be taken up lightly.


DATHAN AND ABIRAM’S COMPLAINT

The second complaint came from Dathan and Abiram and was directed against Moses himself. They refused to meet with Moses and flung his own words back in his face. Moses had said to Korah in essence, “Isn’t it enough that God gave you Levites the work of the tabernacle?” (v. 9). Dathan and Abiram said to Moses, “Is it a small thing that you have brought us up out of a land flowing with milk and honey, to kill us in the wilderness?” (v. 13). The heart of their complaint was that Moses had not delivered what he promised. Instead of bringing them into a land flowing with milk and honey, the land of Canaan, they argued, he had brought them into a wilderness that made the land they left, Egypt, seem like a land of milk and honey (vv. 13, 14). They asked, “Will you put out the eyes of these men?” (v. 14), which is an idiomatic way of saying, “Can you make us blind to the realities we see around us?”3 In other words, “You may have tricked everyone else into blindly following you, but we see clearly what you have done.” They were arguing that Moses had deliberately deceived the people for his own ends.

Dathan and Abiram were people who were disappointed in God. Their experience of his way had not lived up to their expectations, and so they took their disappointment out on the leaders of God’s people. Once again, even though Moses was their ostensible target, it was the Lord against whom they were really in rebellion. The Lord was the one who brought them out of Egypt, not Moses. He was the one who made the promise to give them a land flowing with milk and honey, a promise that could have been fulfilled by now were it not for the unbelief of the people. The reason their present circumstances were so dire was the result of their own sin, not the failure of Moses or of the Lord. Nor had Moses himself profited from his position: he had not taken anyone’s donkey, nor had he wronged anyone in any other way (v. 15). Their accusation was without foundation.

In fact, even though they rebelled together, the charges leveled by Dathan and Abiram were fundamentally different and more sinister than those brought by Korah and the Levites. Korah’s complaint at least presupposed the existence of the Lord and sought higher status within the covenant community. Dathan and Abiram, on the other hand, made no reference to the Lord in their complaint. In fact, they assumed the nonexistence of the Lord, or at least his practical irrelevance.5 They assumed that Moses was the key figure, a magician who had made startling claims but then was unable to deliver the impressive trick he had promised. While Korah assumed that leadership was all about status and privilege, Dathan and Abiram declared that it was about power and pragmatic effectiveness. None of them understood Biblical leadership, which is about divine calling to service.

The same misunderstandings often rear their heads in the contemporary church. Some want leadership in the church for the prestige it brings, and some are quick to criticize if results seem less impressive than another church down the road. Biblical leaders, however, serve because God has called them to that position and recognize that sometimes even those whom God has called may not see dramatic visible results. The prophet Isaiah had as clear a call to preach from the Lord as possible, yet in the very next breath he was informed that few would respond to his ministry (Isaiah 6:9, 10). Pragmatic thinking will often find godly leadership unimpressive. This should not surprise us or dishearten us, for we follow the way of the cross, in which God’s power is made all the more evident by the personal weakness of those whom God has chosen as his leaders (see 2 Corinthians 4:1–11). Our shortcomings make the glory of God’s grace shine out all the more clearly.


GOD’S RESPONSE

The result of the opposition of the southsiders was to bring the whole assembly of God’s people into danger. Korah had claimed that every one of the Israelites was holy and could approach the presence of the Lord. Yet the Lord himself had said that anyone apart from Moses and the priestly tribe of Aaron who approached him would be put to death (3:38). Those who believed Korah’s words would inevitably find death instead of the freedom that he claimed to bring. That is always the way it is with sin: it offers freedom to those who are “liberated” from God’s Law, but in the end all it delivers is death. At first it seemed that the death penalty would be exacted on the entire assembly, but then Moses and Aaron fell facedown once more before the Lord and interceded for them (v. 22). They asked the Lord, “shall one man sin, and will you be angry with all the congregation?” They asked the Lord for an opportunity for the people to distance themselves and their families from the rebellions of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram.

That is exactly what they received. The Lord instructed the assembly to move away from the southsiders’ camp (v. 24). Those who distanced themselves from this rebellious spirit would live, while those who identified themselves with the rebels would die, along with their families. Moses warned the people that the earth would swallow up Dathan, Abiram, and Korah, along with their wives and their children and their little ones (vv. 23–27). That was exactly what transpired (vv. 31–33). The Lord demonstrated graphically that he is neither dead nor irrelevant but is capable of bringing those who show him contempt into judgment (v. 30).


COVENANTAL RESPONSIBILITY

This form of judgment also demonstrates the principle of covenantal responsibility, whereby the sins of the family head are charged also to his children. Here the sins of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram had fatal implications not just for themselves but for their whole families, from infants on up (v. 32). There was no “age of accountability” below which the children were spared. All those who were in the families of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram were judged together and died together. They paid the penalty for the defiant sin of their family head. Yet covenantal responsibility flows in a positive direction as well, conveying life as well as death. The infants of the other families camping nearby were not consulted by their parents before being dragged away; yet they were brought to safety through their parents’ actions.

The covenantal nature of this separation between life and death is itself a small-scale reenactment of the grand covenantal separation that will take place on the last day. There will be only two family groups in that final judgment—those who are in Adam and those who are in Christ. Those in Adam, who have only been born once, have received his sinful nature and the condemnation that accompanies it (Romans 5:12–14). They are destined for death because of Adam’s rebellion, which they have themselves reenacted in their own lives from the moment of birth onward. However, those who have been born a second time by the Spirit of God are in Christ and receive from him his perfect nature and the justification that accompanies it (Romans 5:18, 19). What is more, the promise of this life-giving Spirit is given covenantally, not just to believers but to believers and their children (Acts 2:39). When we baptize our children, we are, as it were, dragging them away from the rebellion of Korah and his followers onto safer ground. We are signing and sealing to them the covenant of grace, warning them of the danger that hangs over all who are in Adam and pointing them to the precious promises of life in Christ. We are telling them that these promises are made to them and are theirs as they trust Christ and submit their hearts to him.

What is more, in the mercy of God the negative covenantal connection is not unbreakable. Even though Korah and his family were swallowed alive and 250 of his followers were burned up by fire from the Lord, not all of Korah’s descendants perished. In Numbers 26, when the second census is taken, it becomes clear that even though Dathan and Abiram were completely cut off and left without descendants, this was not the case for the line of Korah (vv. 9–11). How can this be? The only explanation for this phenomenon is that some of Korah’s family broke out of their natural covenant loyalty to their father and crossed over to the other side. They joined the rest of the community in leaving the tents of Korah, and so they lived when the rest of their kinfolk died. It is the same way with you: even if you do not have believing parents or family members, there is no reason why you should die with Adam. The grace of God is extended to you too, summoning you to come out from those who are condemned to eternal death. The doorway to life is open to you too in Christ: come into his family, receive his righteousness, and you too will live.


GOD’S LEADERS CONFIRMED

If the swallowing alive of Dathan and Abiram and their families was visible disproof of their claim that the Lord was either dead or irrelevant, then the fire from the tabernacle that consumed Korah’s 250 priestly pretenders was visible disproof of Korah’s claim of priestly equality (v. 35). He had said that all Israel was holy and could safely approach the Lord; yet when the claim was tested, it was found false. Only those whom God had chosen could approach him safely; all others would die, just as he had warned them earlier (3:10, 38). The remains of the bronze censers with which they had tried to offer incense were hammered into an overlay for the altar of sacrifice as a permanent reminder of this state of affairs (v. 39). Only the one whom God had chosen could draw near to him. There is no truth in the claim that all roads lead to God. Apart from the one he has chosen, all roads lead to a consuming fire.

The conclusion of the passage shows us clearly the falsehood of the charges against Moses and Aaron. Far from being just like everyone else, Aaron was indeed distinct from the community, called by God to a special role, not so he could lord it over the community but so he could serve. As priest he was the mediator for all, not their master. Far from bringing the community from the land of life to death, Moses was the one who repeatedly saved the community from the judgment of God’s wrath. Far from being an ineffective and irrelevant deity, the Lord was the one who could and would carry out his judgments of death on those who showed contempt for him. Yet at the same time he is also a gracious God who spared the undeserving, or the whole community would long since have been terminated. Far from people needing to have their eyes blinded to believe the truth of these things, you would have had to be blind not to recognize them. God’s sovereignty was vindicated, and the leaders he chose were affirmed.


A BETTER MEDIATOR

Yet Israel needed a better leader than Moses and a more powerful mediator than Aaron. Moses was in the end unable to bring his people into the Promised Land because he had sins of his own. Aaron could stand before the Lord and intercede, but he could not bring spiritually defiled people into God’s life-giving presence. All the bulls and goats he offered and all the incense he burned could not effect the radical change they needed in their standing before God. The formula that Paul pronounces in 1 Corinthians is not, “As in Adam all die, so in Moses and Aaron all will be made alive” (see 15:22). The leadership of Moses and Aaron points us beyond themselves to the one who was yet to come.

Jesus took upon himself all of the guilt that we inherited from Adam, along with that which flows from our own sins. As Paul put it in Romans 5, through the disobedience of one man, Adam, sin first entered the world, and along with sin came death (v. 12). But now through the obedience of Jesus Christ, the second Adam, God’s gracious gift of life has come into the world (Romans 5:15–17). On the cross Jesus, the holy one, experienced the burning fire of God’s wrath against all that is unholy. The one who of all people had the most right to draw near to God met the fate of those who are by nature excluded from God’s presence. Death swallowed him up as he descended into the grip of the tomb for three days. In fact, we could say that the fate that the rebellious sinners experienced in Numbers 16 was his fate, even though Jesus had not rebelled as they did.

Why should holy Jesus share the fate of the unholy at the cross? The reason is simple. He covenantally identified himself with sinners, sharing their destiny so that they might by grace share the destiny that he had merited through his perfect obedience. His death was the fate I deserved for my rebellious heart. He took on himself my judgment, and he transferred to me the vindication he had earned. He went down to the dead, so that in him I might ultimately ascend to the true promised land of milk and honey, Heaven itself. If it were true that all are equally holy and can approach God in themselves, why would the death of Jesus be necessary? The cross would have been a wasteful tragedy. Yet if his death is absolutely necessary for us to be made holy, how could any of us presume to approach God by any other way than through his blood?


THE ANSWER FOR JEALOUSY AND PRAGMATISM

Since God has loved us and gave himself for us, how then can we rebel against the leaders whom God has appointed and thus show contempt for him? Are you jealous of the positions others have in the church? The cross is the answer for our jealousy that others have been given gifts and positions in Christ’s church that we have not. At the cross Jesus purchased us to be his servants, giving him the absolute prerogative to assign us our places in his kingdom, be they small or great. As we contemplate the cost of the cross, we recognize that great suffering and responsibility often goes hand in hand with great privilege in God’s kingdom. There is therefore reason to thank God if he has given us a less challenging and exalted calling than he has given to others. It is our glory to be found obediently doing what God called us to do, whether that task is small or great.

The cross is also the answer to our doubts about the Lord’s presence and effectiveness in our lives. Like Dathan and Abiram, we may sometimes question the circumstances in which we find ourselves. We perhaps expected greater successes or more comfortable circumstances, and so we ask, “What is life doing with me? Why is my situation so much worse than it used to be or than I think it ought to be?”

These questions are not wrong in themselves, but they can easily spill over into an angry resentment toward God and those he has set in authority over us. The reality is that in whatever circumstances we find ourselves, God is neither dead nor absent. Life is not doing anything with us; it is the sovereign God who is doing something with us. The cross reminds us that whatever the difficulties of our present situation, God does care about us. Whatever people may have done to us, God is still in control.

When we seek to discern in the light of the cross what God is doing in and with us in the midst of many challenges and disappointments, our grumbling hearts are reminded that these circumstances too are part of his perfect sanctifying program for us. The Lord knows our strengths, and he knows our weaknesses. He knows the means by which he will ultimately present us to himself as part of his spotless church. In the meantime it is our glory to submit to his direction and leading, through those who in his wisdom he has placed over us, whether the paths he leads us along pass through sunny meadows or steep and winding trails. In the light of the cross we may be confident that in the end he will indeed bring us to the place he has prepared for us, where all of our disappointments will be over, transformed by the joy of his presence.

Duguid, I. M., & Hughes, R. K. (2006). Numbers: God’s presence in the wilderness (pp. 199–209). Crossway Books.