The Key

He Started It All

In an attempt to broaden myself, as well as try to understand the madness that surrounds us, last week I began reading The Bible which is, by most acounts, the foundation book of western civilization. I finished “Numbers,” which is the fourth book of the old testament on the train this morning and I am starting to formulate some ideas. Here is a (partial) reading of verse 16:

1 Now Korah the son of Izhar, the son of Kohath, the son of Levi, with Dathan and Abiram the sons of Eliab, and On the son of Peleth, sons of Reuben, took men; 2 and they rose up before Moses with some of the children of Israel, two hundred and fifty leaders of the congregation, representatives of the congregation, men of renown. 3 They gathered together against Moses and Aaron, and said to them, "You take too much upon yourselves, for all the congregation is holy, every one of them, and the Lord is among them. Why then do you exalt yourselves above the assembly of the Lord?"

4 So when Moses heard it, 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 cause him to come near to Him. That one whom He chooses He will cause to come near to Him. 6 Do this: Take censers, Korah and all your company; 7 put fire in them and put incense in them before the Lord tomorrow, and it shall be that the man whom the Lord chooses is the holy one. You take too much upon yourselves, you sons of Levi!"

8 Then Moses said to Korah, "Hear now, you sons of Levi: 9 Is it a small thing to you that the God of Israel has separated you from the congregation of Israel, to bring you near to Himself, to do the work of the tabernacle of the Lord, and to stand before the congregation to serve them; 10 and that He has brought you near to Himself, you and all your brethren, the sons of Levi, with you? And are you seeking the priesthood also? 11 Therefore you and all your company are gathered together against the Lord. And what is Aaron that you complain against him?"

12 And Moses sent to call Dathan and Abiram the sons of Eliab, but they said, "We will not come up! 13 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, that you should keep acting like a prince over us? 14 Moreover you have not brought us into a land flowing with milk and honey, nor given us inheritance of fields and vineyards. Will you put out the eyes of these men? We will not come up!"

Numbers 16:1-14 (NKJV)

It continues from there and, needless to say, homeslice, homepiece and their followers all get smoked.


My Interpretation:


At the time after the deliverance, there was a lot of discontent among the tribe. Yes they were brought out of Egyptian slavery but they had not prospered at all. In fact, they were suffering many hardships trying to survive in the wilderness as compared to the relative security of being the low men on totem pole in a thriving empire. The whole Hebrew population (Over 600,000 by Moses’ census – hence the book title “Numbers”) left Egypt in mass. Out of that group I would bet that a certain percentage of them had it actually good in “the old country” because ancient slavery was not as barbaric as the American system of the 17 and 1800s. Many slaves were part of “the family” and more akin to the modern day servant. That would explain the “250 congregational leaders” (Who were possibly representing maybe 25 % of the total population) that rose up to challenge Moses’ leadership, clearly upset about their new lot in life Lord or no Lord.

Look how this passage is written and what it stresses. The rebels are seen as doubting blasphemers who deserve to be plunged into a pit created by God splitting the earth under their feet…which does happen to them and over a thousand of their followers. But what are these rebels actually saying? They are questioning authority. Here are the notes associated with these lines from the study version I am reading:

Dathan and Abiram, two allies of Korah, were so arrogant that they would not even come to stand before Moses. They attacked Moses, claiming he acted like a prince. These two approach absurdity when they charged Moses with leading them away from the land that flows with milk and honey. Possibly they were blaming Moses for the fact that the people had to turn away from the land after the rebellion at Kadesh (Numbers 13 & 14). In addition, they charged Moses with brutality. “Will you put out the eyes of these men?” Nothing in the story of The Exodus leads us to think that Moses might have done such a thing.

“Arrogant”? Why because they demanded self determination? “Claiming he acted like a prince”? Moses did. Reaching "absurdity”? Compared to the desert Egypt WAS the land of milk and honey and the only reason why it sounds “absurd” to our ears is because the lot of the people making the claim were slaves in that system and, again, our view of slavery is awfully skewed because of our own disgusting institution. Back then the practice was much more “civilized” and, quite frankly, a way of life. Remember, there are whole passages in the Bible that deal with the proper treatment of slaves and the laws governing slavery…Spoken by God himself!

And then the annotator (I believe it is Ronald B Allen Th.D - and remember this is a modern perspective) writes the last line, “Nothing in the story of Exodus leads us to think that Moses might have done such a thing” which, to say the least, is incredulous. Here is what happened when Moses discovered HIS OWN PEOPLE dancing in front of the Golden Calf:

27 And he said to them, “Thus says the LORD God of Israel: ‘Let every man put his sword on his side, and go in and out from entrance to entrance throughout the camp, and let every man kill his brother, every man his companion, and every man his neighbor.’” 28 So the sons of Levi did according to the word of Moses. And about three thousand men of the people fell that day.

Exodus 32: 27-28 (NKJV)

This is not an important knock I know because this scholar is drinking the Christian Kool-Aid and I am only using his notes for clarification or counterpoint purposes. My main focus is squarely on the actual text. But, still, I can’t stand it when someone attempts to prove their argument by telling me 2 + 2 = 5.

The reader of the Book of Numbers is clearly supposed to side with Moses because he DID speak with God and to question him is to question HIM. The only reason why we think in this way is because we KNOW Moses to be righteous. And the only reason we know of his righteousness is because he is taking orders directly from God and the only reason why we know that he is taking orders directly from God is because Moses told us he did. The deck is stacked.

Granted, if I witnessed the whole parting of the Red Sea incident, as the Hebrews this passage eludes to have, I would have no doubt of Moses’ claims. In fact, I would be the first one yelling “If the Lord wants some stoning then let’s stone somebody!” But did this miraculous event ever happen (as well as the plagues, the burning bush, etc.)? I would say they did not and that those stories were exaggerations and/or concoctions of the people through the years as they orally passed on these stories from generation to generation…like a child’s game of “Telephone.”

So what are we left with: The idea of obedience. Questioning authority will cause you to die or even worse. Submitting to the Lord is the only way to survive…Doubt equals death. And THAT concept, combined with the enlightened ideas of Jesus (I did not get to the New Testament yet) i.e. move away from the insular attitude, dietary code and strict animal sacrifice rituals and move towards turn the other cheek, do not cast the first stone and love each other are the foundation of Western Society. Authoritative government, either the monarch or the priest – more often then not both side by side - telling the people what to do and having the moral sanction to keep order at any cost, which was usually by the sword.

And THAT situation is what The Enlightenment started to overturn. We are in a great transitional period in human history, starting with the ideas of the Philosophes and bolstered by incredible advancements in, first, industrial production and second, and most importantly, technological and communications. One day we will not need any of the hocus-pocus to live in a “moral” society but probably – no definitely - not in our lifetime. Until then we have to start with ourselves and try to teach our children not to rely on superstition. Teach them to use reason and observation to inform their beliefs and decisions. If we can not do it by our words then at least show them in our actions - but preferably do both.

THAT is how WE are going to move forward as a species.

Larry B