The Melchizedek Priesthood in Numbers 16

[PacMan]

Elder and Sister Renlund's new book, The Melchizedek Priesthood, set me on an interesting research project.  They note the story of Korah's rebellion, and that JST Num. 16:10 inserts the word "high" in addition to "priesthood."  I have researched whether the notion that Korah, a Levite, sought the Melchizedek Priesthood is supported by the text.  As set forth below, I believe that this is the only way to interpret this verse.

I have included my personal notes on the subject (albeit a bit lengthy).  I am interested in a criticism of my conclusion -- that Korah sought the Melchizedek Priesthood.  If possible, please provide citations supporting those criticisms.

In Numbers 16, Korah, a Levite, along with others (including Reubenites) and 250 well-renown princes [Ex. 18:25 (leaders of 1000s, 100s, and 10s)] rose up against Moses and Aaron asking why they lifted themselves above the others, asserting that the whole of the congregation “are holy, every one of them, and the Lord is among them . . .”  Num. 16:1-3.  After Moses prayed, he challenged Korah, asking why he thought it was a small thing that God had separated him, a Levite, to “do the service of the tabernacle of the Lord” and to minister to the congregation.  Num. 16:8-9.  Noting that God had already thus brought the Levites closer to Him, Moses asked, “and seek ye the priesthood also?”  Num. 16:10.  The word “priesthood” is the Hebrew noun kehunnah, as it is used in Joshua 18:7.

Jewish commentary notes three divisions among the Levites, each with separate duties.  The Kohathites [Num. 3:31 (to care for the vessels and objects within the sanctuary, namely the Ark of the Covenant, Menorah, and Table of Shewbread)], the Gershonites [Num. 3:25-26 (to care for the curtains, hangings, and ropes of the sanctuary)], and Merarites [Num. 3:36-37 (to care for the framework – posts, crossbars, courtyard, tent pegs, etc., of the sanctuary)].  Kohath was the second son of Levi and grandfather to Moses and Aaron.  The Aaronides are distinguished from among the Kohathites.  Jewish commentary explains that Korah – a non-Aaronic Kohathite – sought what was given to Aaron and his sons, namely the office of “priest” (noun kohen) [Lev. 1:5] and their duty to “act as priests” (verb kahan) [Ex. 28:1].  This explanation has several problems.

First, the priest’s office was not exclusively given to the Aaronides.  The Kohathites as a whole were permitted to carry the Ark, the table, the lampstand, the altars, the sacred utensils, and the screen, all on their shoulders.  Joshua 3:17 specifically refers to these Levites as kohen, or “priests.”  See also, Deut 17:9; 18:1; 24:8; 27:9; Exodus 32:25-29; Malachi 2:4-9.  This is all the more evident given that “Jonathan, the son of Gershom, the son of Manasseh, he and his sons were priests to the tribe of Dan . . . .”  Judges 18:30.  Hebrew tradition (and modern scholars) believe this Manasseh to be Moses.  Jonathan, then, was not a son of Aaron (true or not, these traditions do not disqualify a non-Aaronide from being a priest).  Most likely, is that Aaron and his sons were granted the special priestly office of high priests, to offer the sacrifices, and burn incense; yet, all Levites were priests.

Second, setting aside the “priest’s office,” it also does not appear that God exclusively gave the Aaronides the “priesthood.”  “[T]he Levites have no part among you; for the priesthood [kehunnah] of the Lord is their inheritance . . . .”  Joshua 18:7; see also, Deut. 10:8-9.  Thus, the Levites all had part in the Levitical Priesthood, albeit with differing duties.  Thus, Korah (a likely priest) independently held the Levitical Priesthood yet sought the “priesthood.”  A secondary priesthood, therefore, must exist; namely, in the Priesthood of Melchizedek.

Third, this interpretation is further supported by Moses’ rebuke: “[W]hat is Aaron, that ye murmur against him?”  Num. 16:11.  In other words, Moses is observing that Aaron is just like Korah—a priest of the Levitical Priesthood.  It made no sense for Korah to confront Aaron when he was no better than Korah.  This is made obvious in the next two versus.  Moses calls for Dathan and Abiram, who refuse but sent their own message: “Is it a small thing that thou [Moses] hast brought us up out of a land that floweth with milk and honey, to kill us in the wilderness, except thou [Moses] make thyself altogether a prince over us?”  Num. 16:13.  This verse makes clear that the rebels were really upset with Moses and wanted his authority.  Necessarily, that authority was the Melchizedek Priesthood.

Fourth, even if the “priesthood” (kehunnah) and the “priest’s office” (kohen) were reserved exclusively for Aaron and his sons (Ex. 28:1), it would make no sense for Korah (along with Dathan and Abiram) to affront Moses’ authority and seek the “priesthood” unless this priesthood was one other than the Levitical Priesthood.  This is because Moses was not a son of Aaron and not such a priest.  The reference to “priesthood” must have meant something other than the Levitical Priesthood.  They wanted Moses’ Priesthood—the priesthood they did not have.  This is the Melchizedek Priesthood.

[clarkgoble]

It's definitely a position. You end up with the Sons of Moses versus the Sons of Levi. I don't know how popular an interpretation it is in (non-Mormon) scholarly circles. But it's not terribly hard to find papers on it. Some argue that the school of the prophets and the collection of prophets with Elijah are tied to that. Although that's more speculative. As I recall the Essenes claim to be tied to this group of the Sons of Moses. There have been other groups making the claim including some of the Ethiopian Jews.

 

 

Edited May 4, 2018 by clarkgoble

[PacMan]

Certainly, how the priesthood and office of priest functioned is not completely settled--even among Jewish scholars.  My position is that, either way, there is major hole where the Levites (of any faction) asked for priesthood from Moses.  As far as the Levitical Priesthood went, they had what Moses had (as descendants of Levi and non-Aaronides).  Consequently, they must have been asking for something more.

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, PacMan said:

...........................

Fourth, even if the “priesthood” (kehunnah) and the “priest’s office” (kohen) were reserved exclusively for Aaron and his sons (Ex. 28:1), it would make no sense for Korah (along with Dathan and Abiram) to affront Moses’ authority and seek the “priesthood” unless this priesthood was one other than the Levitical Priesthood.  This is because Moses was not a son of Aaron and not such a priest.  The reference to “priesthood” must have meant something other than the Levitical Priesthood.  They wanted Moses’ Priesthood—the priesthood they did not have.  This is the Melchizedek Priesthood.

All male members of the tribe of Levi are owned by the Lord, and they are not counted among the 12 tribes -- their place was taken by Ephraim and Manasseh.  The job of all male Levites is to serve the Lord at any holy sanctuary, or in any priestly rite which is designated as their responsibility.  For this purpose, as you have pointed out, various lineages are assigned specific tasks, and one can track how those tasks varied through biblical time down to today among the Jews (where members of the tribe of Levi continue to fulfill separate roles, despite the absence of a temple).

Moses and his brother Aaron were both members of the tribe of Levi.  Although the late Frank Moore Cross spoke of the Mushite priesthood (Mosaic),* it is clear that Moses was a special case and cannot easily be pigeonholed.  However, the Lord designated Aaron and his descendants as the kohanim "priests" of Israel, which means that they were in charge, fulfilling the top priestly role, one of whom (the chief priest) had access to the Holy of Holies.  Non-Israelites such as Jethro (Moses' father in law), Melchizedek, and Potiphar (the pagan chief priest of Heliopolis who was father in law of Joseph) were all designated as kohen.  It is thus clear that it is a generic designation of the primary priests in any sanctuary.  Indeed, khn is a Semitic root used to designate any priest or priestess.  The pre-Islamic Arabs, for example, used to go into battle with a priestess (kahina) on a camel holding a holy object sacred to the tribe, just as the Israelites used to go into battle with the Ark of the Covenant carried by priests.

You may want to read what Baruch Levine has to say about Num 16-17 in his Numbers 1-20, Anchor Bible 4A (Doubleday, 1993).

*   According to Frank Moore Cross, Jr., the E and D documents are the vehicles behind which is recognizable the Mushite-Levite-Midianite-Qenite priestly coalition of Shiloh, Nob, Anathoth, Qadesh-Naphtali, Dan, Qadesh-Barnea, and Arad (cf. Leviticus 10, Numbers 12, Judges, Samuel, Kings, the Prophets, and Ezekiel), while the J and P documents are the carriers of the tradition supporting the Aaronide line of Hebron, Jerusalem, and Bethel (cf. Numbers 16, Joshua, Nehemiah, and Chronicles).  This explains a multitude of apparently contradictory biblical parallels, and in the Book of Mormon may justify the presence of a non-Aaronic priesthood (II Nephi 5:26, Jacob 1:17-19).  Moreover, Doctrine & Covenants 84:6-34 starkly distinguishes between two separate priesthoods, the Aaronic and Melchizedek, which have very different lines of authority, and which specifically correlates with Frank Cross’ distinctions.  Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic (1973), 71-74,86,197-207,211,233, 293; C. R. North, “Pentateuchal Criticism,” in H. H. Rowley, ed., Old Testament and Modern Study (Oxford Univ. Press, 1951), 67,69,82 n. 1.

Edited May 4, 2018 by Robert F. Smith

[Nevo]

19 hours ago, PacMan said:

I am interested in a criticism of my conclusion -- that Korah sought the Melchizedek Priesthood.

 

Okay, I'll bite.

Baruch Levine, who takes a historical-critical approach, argues that "there was no stratification within the Israelite priesthood before the Babylonian exile" (Levine, Numbers 1–20, [AB 4; New York: Doubleday, 1993], 289) and that the Korah incident is a creation of postexilic priestly writers (P). He suggests that the story may have been grounded in a dispute within the clan of Kohath in the postexilic period, intended to "establish within Torah literature a unique sanction for the Aaronide priesthood, expressed as the triumph of Aaron over his first cousin, Korah" (430). The earlier non-priestly stratum, according to Levine, "probably contained no reference to Korah and spoke only of a rebellion against Moses led by a group of Reubenites" (405).

Edited May 5, 2018 by Nevo

[nuclearfuels]

I'm not a scholar and don't have the references and citations others here have kindly provided.

I think Korah et al. wanted the existing priesthood like Simon in Acts 8.

They were told they couldn't obtain without being worthy and living specific commandments and having a true, spiritual conversion not a temporary conversion aimed at replacing Aaron and Moses and returning to Egypt's idolatry.

I'm not sure I would say Korah et al. had the knowledge of the Patriarchs and wanted more than what Aaron and the Levites wanted.

Moses' sister Miriam thought she could be a prophetess because Moses was her brother. 

As other posters have said, Moses' calling was a special case not easily pigeon-holed.

 

[PacMan]

On 5/4/2018 at 7:55 PM, Nevo said:

Okay, I'll bite.

Baruch Levine, who takes a historical-critical approach, argues that "there was no stratification within the Israelite priesthood before the Babylonian exile" (Levine, Numbers 1–20, [AB 4; New York: Doubleday, 1993], 289) and that the Korah incident is a creation of postexilic priestly writers (P). He suggests that the story may have been grounded in a dispute within the clan of Kohath in the postexilic period, intended to "establish within Torah literature a unique sanction for the Aaronide priesthood, expressed as the triumph of Aaron over his first cousin, Korah" (430). The earlier non-priestly stratum, according to Levine, "probably contained no reference to Korah and spoke only of a rebellion against Moses led by a group of Reubenites" (405).

If Levine's point is that it didn't really happen and was simply made-up, what is his evidence?  It seems to me that he is creating a history because he does not have a very good answer.  Is that fair?

[Rajah Manchou]

On 5/5/2018 at 3:29 AM, clarkgoble said:

It's definitely a position. You end up with the Sons of Moses versus the Sons of Levi. I don't know how popular an interpretation it is in (non-Mormon) scholarly circles. But it's not terribly hard to find papers on it. Some argue that the school of the prophets and the collection of prophets with Elijah are tied to that. Although that's more speculative. As I recall the Essenes claim to be tied to this group of the Sons of Moses. There have been other groups making the claim including some of the Ethiopian Jews.

In Islamic commentaries, the Sons of Moses escaped Nebuchadnezzar and departed for lands in the far east where they dwell with the Lehite...err Rechabites.

"Al-Ḳazwini, an Arabic geographer of the thirteenth century, says, quoting a Jewish tradition, that the descendants of Moses fled in the time of Nebuchadnezzar to Jabarsa, a city in the extreme east, where no one was able to reach them or to ascertain their numbers (see his "Cosmography," ed. Wüstenfeld, ii. 17, Göttingen, 1848)."

(source)

Edited May 9, 2018 by Rajah Manchou