Numbers Chapter 16

“Now Korah, the son of Izhar, the son of Kohath, the son of Levi, etc.] A great grandson of Levi’s, and own cousin to Moses and Aaron, being brothers children; for Amram the father of Moses and Aaron, and Izhar the father of Korah, were own brothers, both of them the sons of Kohath, and Amram the eldest, and Izhar the next, (<020616>Exodus 6:16,18,21); this man is mentioned first, being the contriver, and plotter, and ringleader of the following sedition, and which is called “the gainsaying of Core”, (<650111>Jude 1:11); when this was made is not certain; Aben Ezra thinks this affair happened in the wilderness of…”

“THE REBELLION OF KORAH. (Num. 16:1-30) Now Korah, the son of Izhar--Izhar, brother of Amram (Exo 6:18), was the second son of Kohath, and for some reason unrecorded he had been supplanted by a descendant of the fourth son of Kohath, who was appointed prince or chief of the Kohathites (Num 3:30). Discontent with the preferment over him of a younger relative was probably the originating cause of this seditious movement on the part of Korah. Dathan and Abiram, . . . and On--These were confederate leaders in the rebellion, but On seems to have afterwards withdrawn from the conspiracy [compare Num 16:12, Num 16:24-25,…”

“Amram and Izhar were brothers (compare Exodus 6:18), and thus Korah, the “son,” i. e. descendant of Izhar, was connected by distant cousinship with Moses and Aaron. Though being a Kohathite, he was of that division of the Levites which had the most honorable charge, yet as Elizaphan, who had been made “chief of the families of the Kohathites” Numbers 3:30, belonged to the youngest branch descended from Uzziel Numbers 3:27, Korah probably regarded himself as injured; and therefore took the lead in this rebellion. Of the others, On is not again mentioned. He probably withdrew from the conspiracy. Dathan, Abiram,…”

“The son of Izhar - Amram's brother, Exo 6:18, therefore Moses and he were cousin germans. Moreover, Izhar was the second son of Kohath, whereas Elizaphan, whom Moses had preferred before him, and made prince or ruler of the Kohathites, Num 3:30, was the son of Uzziel, the fourth son of Kohath. This, the Jewish writers say, made him malcontent, which at last broke forth into sedition. Sons of Reuben - These are drawn into confederacy with Korah, partly because they were his next neighbours, both being encamped on the south - side, partly in hopes to recover their rights of primogeniture, in which the priesthood…”

“16:1–17:13 Another rebellion called for a clear delineation of the duties of priests and Levites. This power struggle was a more serious challenge than any of the previous rebellions against God’s authority (ch 11; 12:1-15; 14:1-45). As in all of these historical episodes, the coconspirators protested relatively minor issues and questioned the actions of their leaders, but Moses reminded them that they were really rebelling against God. Once again, the Israelites suffered the deadly consequences of their rebellion.”

“Korah: Num 26:9, Num 26:10, Num 27:3; Exo 6:18, Exo 6:21; Jde 1:11 sons of Reuben: Gen 49:3, Gen 49:4; Ch1 5:1, Ch1 5:2 took men: As the word men is not in the text, some read "took counsel;" and some "took courage." Houbigant renders yikkach, rebellionem fecerunt, "they rebelled;" which scarcely any rule of criticism can ever justify. Dr. Geddes' translation is, "Another insurrection was raised against Moses by Korah," etc. Others think that it may mean, "behaved with insolence." But, as Dr. A. Clarke observes, the verb wyyikkach, "and he took" which though at the end of the sentence in English, is the first…”

“Num 16:1-2 The authors of the rebellion were Korah the Levite, a descendant of the Kohathite Izhar, who was a brother of Amram, an ancestor (not the father) of Aaron and Moses (see at Exo 6:18), and three Reubenites, viz., Dathan and Abiram, sons of Eliab, of the Reubenitish family of Pallu ( Num 26:8-9), and On, the son of Peleth, a Reubenite, not mentioned again. The last of these (On) is not referred to again in the further course of this event, either because he played altogether a subordinate part in the affair, or because he had drawn back before the conspiracy came to a head. The persons named took (יקּח),…”