Recently, I was listening to an old recording of a minister talking about Korah's Rebellion in Numbers 16. The tone of his talk was to apply this passage to situations today where people rebel against their leaders, which to be fair is a logical use of the passage. However, I immediately had an uneasy reaction to this minister's use of this passage, especially given the uptick in abuses (or simply their discovery) from religion in the past few years. However, I've learned to expect scripture to push against my biases and expectations. Numbers 16, after all, was not written for Americans in 2024. Just like the rest of the Bible, it was written in a much different time and place, and because of it's inspiration, we are able to find ways to apply it to today as well.
This present-day application of scripture is more of an art than a science. For instance, this passage is most definitely about rebellion against the leader of a community. I'll get into some details we should consider, but a question that should be asked in messages is whether a passage of scripture is appropriate for the time. An inappropriate use of a passage, even if it is a "true" usage, can be a damage in the wrong place and time. For example, if this passage were used in a context where people are reeling from pastoral or leadership abuses in order to quell any "rebellions", it would be like an abusive parent who harms their children and instead of apologizing and confessing their fault, tells them to shut their mouths and stop crying. The "truth" of scripture does not only depend on whether it is being used truthfully to what it "literally means", but also if it is being used truthfully to the present-day situation. The truth can be distorted when a message does not sufficiently consider time and place.
But despite what I'm saying, I think this chapter can be used with tact even in the situation I mention. For example, if someone were to preach on this passage, they might emphasize the innocence of Moses. In fact, the passage is very concerned with Moses being actually innocent. In verse 15, when Dathan and Abiram would not come up for God to bring judgement on their rebellion, Moses says to God, "Do not respect their offering. I have not taken on donkey from them, and I have not harmed one of them." In the narrative, the emphasis is on Moses being innocent and humble (Numbers 12:3). So the text emphasizes the injustice of Dathan and Abiram's accusations against him.
Second, it is God who gives Moses authority, and Moses persistently cites evidence of God's actions, not his: "Hereby you shall know that the Lord has sent me to do all these works and that it has not been of my own accord..." Not once in this chapter does Moses take matters into his own hands. Instead, he asks God to intervene and actually asks God to have a softer punishment because he considers what God wants to do excessive (16:20-24).
Despite, God opening up the ground to swallow up Dathan and Abiram's whole company, the people accuse Moses of killing them (16:41).
If someone were to preach on this passage, it's my opinion that they should emphasize the innocence of Moses and not juxtapose this innocence on to leaders today. We should confess our sins and listen to the complaints of the people under our care.
However, the passage also points to situations where communities want to scapegoat their leaders even when they have done nothing wrong. This is an important counterpoint to the sometimes excessive focus on pastors or leaders as the only ones who can be abusive in a church. Sometimes the pastor, or leader, gets scapegoated and is abused by his or her congregation. For instance, I listened to a podcast not long ago where a pastor complained that in the wake of the Fall of Mars Hill podcast, everyone started thinking their pastor was like Mark Driscoll, even though the pastor had not exhibited any of Driscoll's behavior in their congregation.
If a minister were to use Korah's Rebellion in this way, I suggest doing so with humility. For one, you might not have the authority of Moses before God. God may not open the ground up and swallow up dissenters, but through prayer, God may vindicate you in a less violent fashion. But second, you don't want to use this passage to uphold your own myths of innocence. Confession is always appropriate where you have been at fault. However, just because you aren't perfect does not mean you still aren't being scapegoated by your congregation. You can confess your sins while also calling the congregation to examine their own sins and not use the pastor as the scapegoat for all the sins and problems of the whole congregation.
To me, these are some appropriate ways to use this passage in our present day American context. Do you have other perspectives? If so, feel free to leave a comment.
Comments