Par'shah Korach (Korah) Numbers 16-18

[alon]

PAR’SHAH KORACH

To deal with the topic I want to here, we first need to backtrack into Par’shah Shelach a bit.

Numbers 15:37-41 (ESV) The Lord said to Moses, “Speak to the people of Israel, and tell them to make tassels on the corners of their garments throughout their generations, and to put a cord of blue on the tassel of each corner. And it shall be a tassel for you to look at and remember all the commandments of the Lord, to do them, not to follow after your own heart and your own eyes, which you are inclined to sleeper (auto-censor) after. So you shall remember and do all my commandments, and be holy to your God. I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt to be your God: I am the Lord your God.”

Similar fringes were common in the dress of Canaanites and Mesopotamians. To give a fringe to a ruler was to pledge loyalty to him, as the fringes were considered part of a person’s identity. Rulers and priests would send a fringe from their garment with missives to authenticate them. The imprint of the fringe from a king on a clay tablet was like a seal, similar to the signet ring worn by later European kings. So the wearing of the prescribed fringes, or tzitzyot, was no small thing.

According to my JPS TNK, “The tzitzit on the garments of the Israelites identifies them as being holy to God, and symbolically connects them to the priests.” So by wearing tzitziyot, they were pledging loyalty to God as well as the priests who were charged with administering the laws. The violet-blue cord was the same color as that worn on priestly garments and identified them as subject to the priestly edicts. This is why Yeshua later said “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat, so do and observe whatever they tell you,” (Matthew 23:2-3a ESV).

Now to Korah; the rebellion of Korah, Dathan and Abiram was a serious challenge to the hierarchy set up by God. As most rebellions it started with a few and rapidly spread. It didn’t take much, as the Israelites were experiencing the misery of living in the wilderness and eventual settlement of the Promised Land was far in the future. The challenge to Aaron was a direct challenge to the exclusive and prestigious role of the priesthood.

Numbers 16:3 (ESV) They assembled themselves together against Moses and against Aaron and said to them, “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?”

Korah and his followers argue that every Israelite is holy, and therefore able to perform religious rituals in the sanctuary. Korah is proven wrong when he and all the rebels were destroyed by God. Furthermore, when the people were now fearful and still rebellious, Aaron’s staff blossomed and bore fruit, proving the anointing of God on Aaron’s line as the priesthood.

Numbers 17:1-10 (ESV) 1The Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 2 “Speak to the people of Israel, and get from them staffs, one for each fathers' house, from all their chiefs according to their fathers' houses, twelve staffs. Write each man's name on his staff, 3 and write Aaron's name on the staff of Levi. For there shall be one staff for the head of each fathers' house. 4 Then you shall deposit them in the tent of meeting before the testimony, where I meet with you. 5 And the staff of the man whom I choose shall sprout. Thus I will make to cease from me the grumblings of the people of Israel, which they grumble against you.” 6 Moses spoke to the people of Israel. And all their chiefs gave him staffs, one for each chief, according to their fathers' houses, twelve staffs. And the staff of Aaron was among their staffs. 7 And Moses deposited the staffs before the Lord in the tent of the testimony. 8 On the next day Moses went into the tent of the testimony, and behold, the staff of Aaron for the house of Levi had sprouted and put forth buds and produced blossoms, and it bore ripe almonds. 9 Then Moses brought out all the staffs from before the Lord to all the people of Israel. And they looked, and each man took his staff. 10 And the Lord said to Moses, “Put back the staff of Aaron before the testimony, to be kept as a sign for the rebels, that you may make an end of their grumblings against me, lest they die.” (Note: this is Numbers 17: 21-25 in the Jewish TNK)

Again, according to the notes in my Study TNK, this all “demonstrates that popular holiness attached to the tzitzit still renders wearers subordinate to the priests. The peoples holiness derives from their obligation to follow the commandments.”

I personally am a Rebel by birthright (Texas) and by nature, as I absolutely hate any abuse of authority. However I also see the need for legitimate, Godly authority. I am very careful of who I sit under for instruction. I am fortunate to have found two very good Rabbis, and I have no problems submitting to either of them in authority. My halacha is from Rav S, whose teachings I find very accurate (whenever I think I disagree, a bit of research generally proves him right). I also come under the authority of R’ Reuel when I am on here, and again I have no problem with that. The SoF here is almost identical to ours, and so far differences in teaching have been minor. I find them both to be Godly men in position of authority.

So am I saying everyone should submit to some authority? Well, yes and no. Everyone is where they are in their walk, and I don’t think either Rabbi would push anyone to make a decision before they are ready. I will also say it is easier when you have a good teacher who you trust to guide and instruct you as you enter into what is for most of us some very unfamiliar territory. You could do worse than catching R’ Reuel’s d’rash online every Shabbat. Many of us may never reach full observance for a number of reasons. But we are responsible to do as much as we can. This includes learning as much as possible; and that usually means getting instruction from a good teacher as opposed to taking your chances on the internet at large.

Dan C

[alon]

I not too long ago got into an argument with someone who had been on the Wycliffe Bible Translators staff about Eternal Security. She said that a person who was saved could not sin, because anything they did was immediately forgiven. I am afraid I was a little abrupt, calling this a doctrine of demons. The problem is as with most Christian/Western beliefs, we tend to be absolute; black and white. Jewish thought, the thought patterns through which YHVH chose to reveal Himself to mankind is not generally so. However, in the case of sin they are pretty absolute.

English translation unintentional sin: Heb bishgaga, translated unintentional sin in Lev 4:1 infers that all manner of wrongs and transgressions can be committed without intent. However this begs the question, if there was no intent, where was the sin? Looking further into the term we find it can mean a mistake, or unintentional act. But it also can mean an intolerable act. Now, taken in the context of sin requiring innocent blood be shed on the alter, which seems the more likely meaning? So this class of sin is not at all unintentional. And as with all sin, it requires repentance, not just sacrifice. In fact, without first repenting any sacrifice was then, as now (though we don’t sacrifice animals today) worthless.

The Bible never talks about intentional sin, another clue that the earlier translation is in error. Instead it talks about b’yad rama, or high handed sin. This is the sin of rebellion, for which there is no expiation as long as we remain in that state. To die in rebellion is to die as Korah in a fallen state.

Numbers 15:30-31 (ESV) But the person who does anything with a high hand, whether he is native or a sojourner, reviles the Lord, and that person shall be cut off from among his people. Because he has despised the word of the Lord and has broken his commandment, that person shall be utterly cut off; his iniquity shall be on him.”

Sin by its very nature is an affront to God, because when we sin we cannot fulfill our purpose, part of which is to reflect His glory. However in His infinite mercy, He does provide a way by which we may be reconciled to Himself; our right relationship and purpose restored. It is based on His free gift when we repent. The term for repentance is from the Heb root shuv, meaning to turn back, or to return. Here is where our eternal security is found. If we turn back to God, He will forgive.

In the parable of the prodigal son, after all his high handed sinning had cost the father half his wealth, the son returned. He did not return to be a son- he already was that. He returned to the love and authority of his father’s house. He came back with a penitent heart, saying it would be better to be a servant there if that was what was required. But he was welcomed back as a full son and heir.

John 10:27-29 (ESV) My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand.

However sheep do often stray, and the shepherd will sacrifice to find the lost sheep and return it to the fold. But we must repent; we must heed the call when we hear His voice. Otherwise we are cut off. I believe the “Old Testament” is still instructional, and still is the guideline, the standard. If the early Israelites were cut off for high handed sin, then so are we today. This is where such ridiculous theological attitudes as that displayed by a member of a highly respected translation organization can come in; they have neglected . They take scripture out of context with the letter or book, the other writings of this author, the history, culture and political landscape of the times … with no context at all and no regard for they translate and interpret scripture to mean what they want; what makes it easy for their western minds to accept.

Ironically, I did get this person to admit that in the case of the over 5000 source documents for the “New Testament” which are mostly in disagreement with each other, the standard for which was right was ! Go figure. But the main lesson here in Par'shah Korach is that if we die in our rebellion, we will go down to She'ol as Korah and all those who rebelled against Moses, Aaron and most damningly, God, did. These were Hebrews, God's people who He had redeemed from Egypt and who had accepted His covenant at Sinai. Yet tells us they perished, and some the earth swallowed up while those who brought fire before the Lord to be tested were consumed by Holy Fire. These men were consumed by the fire of an angry God; their security forfeited in their rebellion.

Dan C

[Elizabeth]

We unintentionally hurt others, and therefore G-d, all the time. Even humans understand the need for at least a sorry, if not some more concrete form restitution for accidents and mistakes. We simply don't have the wisdom or power to avoid creating the occasional bad consequence. I think this goes back to us asking for more than we can handle and wanting to be like G-d in Eden.

[alon]

Jun 26, 2015 14:57:53 GMT -8 Elizabeth said:

We unintentionally hurt others, and therefore G-d, all the time. Even humans understand the need for at least a sorry, if not some more concrete form restitution for accidents and mistakes. We simply don't have the wisdom or power to avoid creating the occasional bad consequence. I think this goes back to us asking for more than we can handle and wanting to be like G-d in Eden.

You are of course correct. I didn't mean to say these were the only two types of sin. In fact, The TNK uses 6 different nouns and 3 verbs (depending on how you count) to describe sin. It is just that the two major divisions in the post are so misused by mainstream religion.

Just for reference, some other Hebrew words/meanings for sin:

ra`, bad or evil - from ra`a, which can also refer to something broken; most often translated as "evil" or "bad" (Strong's #7451). Implies something contrary to God's nature.

chatta’ath, sin or sinful; missing the mark; offense. (Strong's #2403). Implies that which deserves punishment.

rasha, wandering from the Path, either intentionally or not. Wicked or criminal, wickedly departed; something that is morally wrong . (Strong's #7563).

avon, crookedness; perversity, depravity, iniquity. Root `avah, to bend, twist, distort, or to make crooked. (Strong's #5771).

pesha , rebelling; a rebellion against God and His authority; to break away (from just authority), trespass, apostatize, quarrel: - offend, rebel, revolt, transgress (Strong's #6586)

asham, trespassing, offending, being guilty. asham refers to the ultimate consequences of sin: utter desolation. (Strong's #816).

ta`ah, to wander about, be made to swagger like a drunkard; physical “intoxication” with a prostitute); to vacillate, reel or stray (Strong's #8582)

shagah, to swerve, meander, reel, roll, be intoxicated, err in drunkenness; mislead, mistake, go astray, deceive, err, be ravished, sin through ignorance . (Strong's #7686)


DanC