GENERAL INTRODUCTION
5.6. Judgment of Dathaii and Abiram 5,6.1 Translation
V.2S Then Moses rose up and went to Dathan and Abiram, and the elders of Israel went after him. And he spoke to the congregation, saying, "Depart now from the tents of these wicked men! Touch nothing of theirs, lest you he consumed in all their sins." 27 So they got away from around the tents ofKorah, Dathan, and Abiram; and Dathan and Abiram came out and stood at the door of their tents, with their wives, their sons, and their little children. 28 And Moses said: "By this you shall know that the Lord has sent me to do all these works, for I have not done them of my own will. 29 "If these men die naturally like all men, or if they are visited by the common fate of all men, then the Lord has not sent me. 30 "But if the Lord creates a new thing, and the earth opens its mouth and swallows them up with all that belongs to them, and they go down alive into the pit, then you will understand that these men have rejected the Lord." 31 Now it came to pass, as he finished speaking all these words, that the ground which was under them split apart, 32
and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them up, with their households and all the men who belonged to Korah, with all their possessions. 33 So they and all those with them went down alive into sheol; the earth closed over them, and they perished from among the assembly.
5,6.2, Analysis
Moses understands that the case of Dathan and Abiram is serious and that he cannot deal with it alone, as he did in other instances. He resolves to be accompanied by the council of the elders as he walks to the tents of his accusers. It is a positive and commendable move for leaders to go towards their opponents and seek reconciliation. The presence of elders in the delegation that meets Dathan and Abiram is meant to prove that part of the leadership was still faithful to Moses. The confidence given to this council by the congregation allows Moses to deal boldly with the dissidents,
V. 26: It is likely that Moses and the elders did not change the determination of Dathan and Abiram. The confrontation between the two groups is not reported but one can imagine the outcome of their meeting by the reaction of Moses. He orders the crowd to move away from the tents of his opponents lest they perish with them. People are warned to dissociate themselves from "these wicked men" and avoid touching anything belonging to them (v. 26). Moses has tried in vain to bring them to the tabernacle's court, but they refused to come up and now Moses and the elders have joined them at their
16?
homes hoping to resolve their antagonism, but they fail. The failure of reconciliation raises the crucial question: How far should a leader go with his antagonists to try to win them back? For Moses, this was the final attempt for reconciliation; after this he must rid himself of the troublemakers. We are too remote in time to assess if what Moses did was enough or if there was still room for more negotiations. We will come back to this when we consider the character of Moses in this narrative.
V. 27 states that the people separated themselves from the tent of Korah, Dathan and Abiram. The fact that they leave the accusers alone at this very moment perhaps indicates that they have gathered there out of euriosity and not as partners in the rebellion. But there are two ways of interpreting the attitude of the crowd. First, they know that Dathan and Abiram are fighting for their own positions in leadership and not for the cause of the congregation; therefore they let them bear alone the consequence of their actions.
Secondly, even though the revolt of Dathan and Abiram was intended to bring a change in the leadership for the benefit of the whole congregation, the people realize that they will not win. It is known that the support of the mob is not consistent; they can cheer you today and curse you a day after.
The mention of the name of Korah in this verse poses some problems of interpretation because he was said to have been with his group at the tabernacle offering incense (vv.
18-19). It can only be assumed that he left the 250 and came in support of his allies Dathan and Abiram. The use of the singular pu?8 tabernacle instead of *?nx here and in v.24 is also ambiguous. The Pentateuch often uses the singular form p^B for the tabernacle of Yahweh and not as a human dwelling. It may suppose that Korah, Dathan and Abiram have erected another tabernacle. This interpretation may explain why Moses asks God not to accept their offering (v. 15). One possible explanation is that they have made their own altar in their tent. I concur with those who think that the term means their dwelling-place because the narrator uses both b?\H (v. 26) and p©?2 (v. 27) to designate the same habitation.240 At the end of this verse only Dathan and Abiram stand with their families at the entrance of the tent, curious to see what will happen. Nothing is
240 Richard E. Averbeck, "p«ra" N1DOTTE vol.2, 1134 no 5439.
said about Karah, nor about his sons who are mentioned later in the narrative 26:11 (of. 1 Chr. 6:22-38). Many biblical references in the Psalms and elsewhere show that the sons of Korah did not die along with Korah's company.
v. 28. Moses opens his judgment by stating that he is not doing things according to his personal will. He is accomplishing what he is told to do; in Hebrew, "not from my heart."
He continues by affirming that he has been sent by Yahweh to do all these works. By "all these works" Moses may include the liberation from Egypt and the nominations of priests and other officials. This statement is his response to those who accuse him of being an autocrat. People who question his legitimacy should know that he is an envoy of Yahweh for liberation. Moses himself knows that this is not a satisfactory answer because the accusers would require more detailed explanations. The Israelites are moved to believe only when they see signs and miracles. Maybe this is the time to show that Yahweh is behind everything he does by performing a miracle.
Te convince the audience that his commission comes from God, Moses pronounces the sentence that Yahweh has to confirm. "If these men die the death of all men and are visited according to the visitation of all men, then Yahweh has not sent me" (v. 29). The verb 'visit' can be used of God visiting for good or evil. What Moses wishes is that his detractors suffer something that is not common. The proposal is that if the contenders die a normal death, or by any common means that the people have already experienced or seen, then Moses should be considered as a pretender. People can then conclude that God has not sent him. But if an extraordinary thing happens, then they may acknowledge the hand of God.
V.30 expands on what miracle Moses expects in order to validate his commissioning by God. Yahweh should make something new; in Hebrew, "create a new thing or a creation". The new thing, as suggested by the narrative, is to be swallowed alive into "niW
169
sheol. Sheol is assumed to be under the earth and the place of the dead.241 Entering that place without experiencing death on earth is, according to Moses, something the people had never seen before. Moses says if these ehallengers and all their belongings go alive into sheol then people will know that they have offended Yahweh. Here Moses presents himself as a simple servant of the Lord, executing God's orders. Moses presumes that whoever is not happy with his actions should blame God, who takes on the full responsibility for the exodus and all the stipulations and institutions. This is not the first time that Moses identifies any attack on God's chosen ruler as offending God. In the previous revolt he told Korah, "It is against Yahweh that you and all your company gather together, who is Aaron that you should grumble against him?" (16:11).
Moses' pronouncement specifies that either God performs exactly what Moses requires, therefore vindicating His servant, or that He does something less or nothing at all of what Moses asks and therefore He disowns his servant. The audience as well as the reader is therefore placed in suspense to see what God will do in relation to Moses' request.
Vv. 31-33. Moses' pronouncement draws an immediate response. As soon as Moses has finished speaking, God intervenes to accomplish what Moses has wished. It is interesting to notice the reversal of things in this episode. In the revolt of Korah and the 250 leaders, God decided alone on the punishment and proposed to consume those who were offering incense (v.21). However, the fire itself did not fall down until Dathan and Abiram were swallowed up (v.35). In this case, Moses is the one who initiates the judgment and God does the work. It seems that God accepts the role of an executor, providing convincing evidence that he supports His servant Moses. The earth opened its mouth and swallowed Moses' opponents up. The text asserts that even the households and possessions of the accusers were swallowed up (v.32). Here it is mentioned that among those who perished are "the men who belonged to Korah" without clear indication if these are Dathan and Abiram or Korah's allies. The text reads that the 250 princes who formed the company of
241 Translated as "Hades" in the LXX which can be either a plaee that receives all souls after death or a place of punishment of the wicked; see Joachim Jeremias, "Hades"
TDNT. Vol.1,148-149.
HHHHH^^^^^^^^MBHHBBBMHH^^^^^HBBHHBBHMI^^
Korah, as stated earlier, died in the Are from the tabernacle where they were offering incense. Although their sentence was pronounced first, the fire did not come down until the entire households of Dathan, Abiram and probably Korah were swallowed up by the earth (v.35). However, Korah's sons are referred to later in the narrative (Num. 26:11) and in Psalms stating that they did not all die with their father.
The fate of Korah seems ambiguous in the text because it is not clearly stated how he escaped the fire which burnt his 250 allies and found himself associated with Dathan and Abiram. One possible explanation of this ambiguity derives from Korah's position in the entire episode. The Narrator presents him as the main instigator and the key player in the whole movement of revolts. He leads the 250 princes to the tabernacle for incense burning without taking himself a censer as ordered by Moses (v. 17). While Aaron and the 250 princes were busy offering incense, Korah stood with Dathan and Abiram as they confront Moses and the council of elders; where he was eventually caught in the earthquake. As the coordinator of the revolt Korah had to be present everywhere, which explains why he could not be located in one particular group. On the other hand, it is possible that the narrator arranges his story in such a way that key actors who are mentioned by names, Korah, Dathan and Abiram, undergo the same fate, separate from the anonymous group.
It is hard to explain the severity of the judgment towards children and wives, who might not have participated in the wrongdoings of Dathan and Abiram. This is another tension that the reader of the Pentateuch has to wrestle with between the corporate punishment for and individual responsibility for sin. Sometimes the sinner bears the consequence of his/her sin alone and in other cases the whole family or congregation suffers for the wrongdoing of one person. It not easy for the reader to predict which sin entails individual or corporate punishment. The author seems to emphasize the corporate punishment of Dathan and Abiram as a means to eradicate any resistance to Moses' leadership.
171
V.34: Many people have come to witness this public confrontation between Moses and the elders, on the one side, and the contenders, on the other side. When the earth splits, and as they hear those who went into the pit alive screaming, the text says that all Israel around them fled for their lives, fearing that they would be swallowed up. The flight of the people may be a proof that they were not part of the rebellion. Abiram and Dathan were likely not speaking on behalf of the people, but seeking their own interest and positions. The sparing of the crowd also shows the limited extension of the opening of the earth. The crust selectively breaks around the place where these few families stood, almost under their feet, leaving the multitude of spectators alive. The miraculous nature of the catastrophe has been under debate among scholars who try to attach this catastrophe to some natural phenomenon in the region. There is no convincing argument on this matter.'" After analyzing the revolt of Dathan and Abiram and its outcome, it is important to consider particularly how the narrator portrays God and Moses as important characters in this scene.
§.?. Moses
This study has shown that Moses has played a passive role in the revolt of Korah, referring all matters to God's arbitration. He tells the people that only God can show who is holy and worthy to hold the censer (16:5). He presents himself and Aaron as simple mediators. This is not the case in the revolt of Dathan and Abiram. In this episode the heroic image of Moses takes the lead and his presence dominates the scene. His full involvement may be due to the nature of this second revolt. Dathan and Abiram are not interested in ecclesiastical matters, but their claim is political. They rebel against the political leadership of Moses whom they consider as having failed in his assignment. To counter this revolt Moses wants to deal personally with the contenders. Moses is the leader in charge of Israel; therefore rebels are answerable to him.
The narrative gives two different images of Moses' engagement with his opponents. First, Moses is portrayed in a positive image as a peacemaker. He is a leader who wants to
Ui See Wenham, Numbers, 135-136.
enter into dialogue with his contenders and eventually obtain reconciliation. He is aware of their rebellion and yet he calls them to a meeting. Unfortunately, Dathan and Abiram refuse to attend the meeting, Who knows whether out of this meeting a common understanding and/or reconciliation could have been reached and the bloodshed of some innocent people (wives and children of rebels) avoided. Nevertheless, Moses is not discouraged by this attitude; he takes a second step by including the elders of the community in the visit to his contenders1 home. Although their visitation was not met with success, the intention was good and recommendable. Many African leaders both secular and religious could learn a lesson on conflict resolution from Moses in this episode. Moses' approach in this conflict corresponds to the definition of problem solving given by John Groom,
It is a process that helps the parties in a dispute to confront the fact that in some respects their definition of the problem may need to be revised and they may have misunderstood the perception of other parties about the nature of the dispute."3
Moses is also positively presented as an honest leader. He challenges whoever accuses him of extortion or oppression. He openly declares before his accusers and before God that he does not take bribery or impose tribute on people and also does not hurt members of the community. Moses' testimony can be trusted because none of the eharges laid against him refers to extorting people. Considering Moses' claim from my African and mostly Congolese background, I understand how hard it is for our rulers to claim their honesty in handling national resources and their innocence in their relationship with the population. The New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD) acknowledges that democracy and good political governance are among the factors that should be promoted in order to sustain the development of Africa. These include transparency, accountability, and integrity, the rule of law and respect of human rights.2"
2ii John Groom, "Facilitating problem solving in internationalized conflicts" in Anthony Minnar and Mike Hough (eds), Conflict, Violence and Conflict Resolution: Where is South Africa Heading? (Pretoria: HSRC, 1997), 186,
2« N E P A D ' S Document, The New Partnership for Africa's Development (Abuja, 2001), 12,
173
On the negative side of the portrait, Moses appears as a very emotional person who easily loses his temper when confronted by accusers. He becomes very angry, and driven by his anger he prays for a curse on his enemies. He asks God to punish his enemies in an astonishing way, that they should be buried alive with their families and possessions. The reader is not used to sueh a vindictive spirit from the leader of Israel. It is even disturbing to realize that God has entrusted him with all His confidence and answers word for word Moses* prayer of revenge. Families and their possessions are swallowed up. For the New Testament Church, this reaction sounds like a message contrary to the Gospel of love and even contrary to the African ubuntu which respects the humanness of all fellow human beings including one's enemies. Moses* reaction raises the question: What is the appropriate way of reacting against enemies? Desmond Tutu depicts the difficulty of treating fairly one's enemies, even within the African ubuntu,
It does not always happen, of course. Where was ubuntu in the Belgian Congo in the early 1960s? Why did the Rwandans forget ubuntu in 1994 and instead destroy one another in that most awful genocide that overwhelmed their beautiful country? I don't really know except to say that honouring ubuntu is clearly not a mechanical, automatic and inevitable process.24*
What can one learn from the example set by Moses in this display of human weaknesses?
It is obvious that leadership by terror is not commendable. For people from the Congo who have suffered from years of dictatorship and the killing of those who dared oppose Mobutu's regime, the reading of this story brings fresh memories of that epoch. It would be unfortunate if some political or religious despots would use this story to silence or kill their opponents, because Moses and God did the same. Moses' intolerance in this scene stands against one of the key features of leadership advocated by Calvin Miller.
All who lead must learn to cope with difficult people. The call to leadership demands that we learn that among those we lead exists a great many people who will be difficult, perhaps impossible, to lead.246
w Desmond Tutu, No Future Without Forgiveness (Johannesburg: Rider, 1999), 36.
m Calvin Miller, The Empowered Leader: 10 Keys to Servant leadership (Nashville:
Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1995), 138.