The Incident with Korah,Dathan and Abiram

In the story of Korah, Dathan and Abiram, however, we have God working quite differently from the way in which He worked in the previous instances. With Korah's rebellion, God did not call upon the people to do their self-appointed work of destroying the wicked. Here, rebellion was not put down by force. Yet there had been no change in the government of Israel. They carried the sword as much then as they had done previously at Mount Sinai and later in the conquest of Canaan. Why was it, then, that the Lord did things differently here from what He had done in all the other situations? Was He being inconsistent after all?

The truth is, if God had called upon the government of Israel to punish Korah, Dathan and Abiram, then He would have been inconsistent. Because there is a vital difference between the situation at the golden calf and the situation with Korah.

The incidents with Amalek, with the golden calf at Mount Sinai, with the Sabbath-breaker, the adulterers, Achan and the conquest of Canaan, all involved problems arising in those area which had passed under the jurisdiction of the people. It was related to their way of doing things. In fact, if God's way had been faithfully carried out in the camp, those situations would have remained the responsibility of God, and He would have dealt with them all in His own way. But they had not adhered to His way, so He could not.

The critical difference with Korah and his followers was that they had made their attack upon an area which was still completely under God's jurisdiction. That area was the work and position of Moses, who still did things entirely God's way, and hence remained under His jurisdiction. From the day of his flight into Midian to the day of his death, Moses never carried the sword. He received no commands or directions from the people, but only from God. He was not in any sense answerable to the people. He answered to God alone. The people had appointed the sword; God had appointed Moses. Therefore, between Moses and God there stood no one and nothing of man's way to interfere.

Now this means that on earth, within the camp of Israel, there existed two completely different situations. The people, as a whole, had taken up the sword and thus placed a human government between them and God. But a completely different situation existed with Moses, who had never taken the sword, and hence had no human government to interfere between himself and God.

Thus, when the sins of the people arose, they had to be dealt with according to the government under which they had placed themselves. But when Moses sinned, or when the people attacked his position, where God's way and God's way alone was being faithfully maintained, the incident had to be handled God's way. We have but to look to see the unalterable consistency with which God related Himself to these two opposite situations.

The pattern is invariably consistent. The first attack on the position of Moses was by his sister and brother, Miriam and Aaron. Numbers 12. In attacking the position and person of Moses, they were attacking an area in which God's way alone was being carried out. And just as surely as they did that, the Lord Himself dealt with it in His own way, without ever calling upon the government of Israel to punish them in their way.

Again, in Numbers 21:5 when they were journeying around Edom, "The people spake against God and against Moses. . . ."Here the same situation arose and once again the Lord dealt with them in His own way.

What that way was, we are told in Patriarchs and Prophets, 429:

"If with all these tokens of His love the people still continued to complain, the Lord would withdraw His protection until they should be led to appreciate His merciful care and return to Him with repentance and humiliation.
"Because they had been shielded by divine power, they had not realized the countless dangers by which they were continually surrounded. In their ingratitude and unbelief they had anticipated death and now the Lord permitted death to come upon them. . . As the protecting hand of God was removed from Israel, great numbers of the people were attacked by these venomous creatures."

As some have learned, God does not put down rebellion with force. The Desire of Ages, 22, 579. That is never His way, for compelling power is found only under Satan's government. Yet the words of Moses concerning Korah's rebellion can be all too easily misunderstood to indicate that the Lord did indeed personally open the earth and swallow them up:
"But if the Lord make a new thing, and the earth open her mouth, and swallow them up, with all that appertain unto them, and they go down quick into the pit, then ye shall understand that these men have provoked the Lord." Numbers 16:30.

We have come to understand how to interpret these expressions by comparing Scripture with Scripture. We know that "God does not stand toward the sinner as an executioner of the sentence against transgression; but He leaves the rejecters of His mercy to themselves, to reap that which they have sown." The Great Controversy, 36.

The ultimate question is, How could this have been true in the case of Korah? The answer is, however, quite simple. Every moment of every day, we live under the imminent outbursting of a thousand destructive forces. It is only the restraining power of God which prevents these things from taking place. Let that restraint be removed and suddenly and disastrously the flood of terror is unleashed. (See The Great Controversy, 36). It may be an earthquake, a storm, a great conflagration, a tidal wave, or pestilence, only waiting the opportunity to break out.

And so it was back in Korah's day. The earthquake and then the pestilence had been there all the time, only waiting to happen. When Korah and his followers sinned away all the protective presence of God, there was nothing to stop it from happening in that area where they stood. And it did happen. God did not send it, certainly, for that is not the way of God. But He was obliged to leave them, and He did. After that, there was nothing to save them.

There are those, however, who would quote the words at the end of this chapter in Patriarchs and Prophets, 405 saying that this explanation is the same position taken by the rebels back then:
"Notwithstanding they had had the most convincing evidence of God's displeasure at their course, in the destruction of the men who had deceived them, they dared to attribute His judgments to Satan, declaring that through the power of the evil one, Moses and Aaron had caused the death of good and holy men. It was this act that sealed their doom."

But there is a very great difference between our position and that of the rebels back there, who made those accusations against God and Moses. In the first place, Korah and his men were not good and holy men. On the contrary, they were entirely rebellious and wicked men whose attack was directed against the very principles and foundations of God's government.

In the second place, Moses certainly did not work in league with Satan in their destruction. The sin of the rebels was in saying that Moses was of Satan and they were of God, when the opposite was true.
But none of this alters God's way of working. His way is ever and only to withdraw His protection from the offender. Even then, it is not because He chooses or wants to withdraw. The people themselves leave Him with no choice and He is obliged to depart from them. For, to stay any longer, would be to force His presence where it is not desired.

Search as you may through the Scriptures, you will see the unvarying pattern of God's behaviour. In every instance where you see men standing between God and the sinner with a government of the sword, God will not interfere nor insist on doing things His own way under those circumstances. He will either leave men entirely alone to do it their own way or, if He has any access to the people at all, He will call upon them to do it in the wisest, most merciful way.

But on the other hand, when nothing stands between God and the sinner, then the Lord will gladly deal with the problem in His own way. He will stay with that person until every resource of salvation has been exhausted and He has no choice left but to withdraw and leave that person or nation to the fate they have chosen. Sometimes the destruction will come with terrible suddenness, as in the case of Korah, Dathan and Abiram. At other times it comes slowly, stealthily, but just as inexorably as in the fall of Jerusalem.

But whichever way the destruction comes, at all times we have a God Who is ". . .the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning." James 1:17.

Thank you Ikan, Now I understand much more clearly.That was a terrific sermon!

You are more than welcome, Dru.

To all those who said similiar "Thank Yous" in private emails: yes, your all were correct. It is allowing the real Jesus to shine through! That is the point when He said:

"..he that hath seen Me, hath seen the Father.."

The problem is that most do not actually "see" Jesus at all, but marred reflections of...what?...other men's minds?...personal fears?...Satan's projections?...scholastic bias?...There are zillions of factors. But no need to hold to any of these, unless one just wants to!

When I said I agreed with the main point, I was agreeing with the principle that the Word of God explains what words, or perhaps better phrases mean. For example, what does "the wrath of God" mean? We see from the study of the Scriptures that it means that God withdraws His protection. What does "for ever and ever" mean? We see it means something different for the Bible writers than it would mean in English usage.

The point I was making about words is that the Scriptures were written by ordinary people for ordinary people, not by theologians for theologians. The Bible does not have secret meanings to words that only the enlightened can understand, although it is true that the Bible has deep truths that require digging to discover, and also true that spiritual things are spiritually discerned.

A question for Ikan and for Mike. Ikan, what does the following mean, especially the underlined part?

quote:

---

Therefore, when the situation arose at Mount Sinai, God could not, and did not, deal with it Himself. In effect, He said to the Israelites, you have set up a government based upon the principle of force. Having turned away from My way, you will have to handle this situation you own way. The most I can do is to give you counsel on the best way of handling it using the weapons you have chosen."

---

That is, what specifically did you have in mind in writing the underlined part?


Mike, you wrote

quote:

---

Yes, God does not use force to force us to love Him. That is, He doesn’t use force to squelch rebellion to force us to love Him. But this insight should not be used to prove that God does not punish and destroy unrepentant sinners. True, He does not use punishment and destruction to force us to love Him. That’s obvious. Instead, God resorts to force of punishment and destruction only after love and mercy fails to motivate us to love and accept Jesus as our personal Saviour. Which is not the same as saying, Love Me or I'll kill you.

---

I'm not understanding the underlined part. This seems to me to be exactly agreeing with Satan's argument.

Satan says that force is God's way. Do what God says, or He will kill you. You write that God only reverts to the "force of punishment and destruction" after love and mercy fails. But if the "force of punishmen and destruction" is waiting behind the appeals of love and mercy, then Satan is right: there really is a dark side to God. He really will kill you if you don't do what He says. Force really is the governing principle of His government.

When inspiration tells us that force is not a principle of God's government, and that compelling power is only to be found under Satan's government, you seem to understand this to mean that force is not always a governing principle of God's government. That is, if an exception can be found where God doesn't use force, then that means that force is not a governing principle of God's government.

Where I, Ikan and others differ is that we do not believe that force is ever a governing principle of God's governement. That's what it means to say that force is not a governing principle of God's government. God really is able to resolve the problem of sin completely by love and truth. And when inspiration tells us that compelling force is not to be found under God's government, that means just what it says: God never resorts to compelling force. If He did, even just once, then it could not be said that force is not a governing principle of His government.

God is subject to the law of God. He is true to Himself.