Gooding, David: 5 - Contending for the Faith

The session this evening, and thus to weary yourselves, but there are comfortable beds at the end of it, so I am told. I shall need this extra session, and possibly one tomorrow, to complete what I have to say upon the way that the New Testament uses the old. Even so, we shall not cover every way that the New Testament uses, but perhaps sufficient that will make a solid groundwork for our own study and use of the book of Judges. When we broke off, we were talking about the tabernacle and using the popular term type, and saying that if you use that popular term type of the tabernacle, then what you should be meaning is that the tabernacle was designed by God himself in its details to be a copy of things in the heavens and also a shadow of good things to come. In that it would differ from many an historical instant- incident in the Old Testament, in the lives of people like Abraham or David or Joseph or, or Isaac and so forth, which weren't designed by God in all their details, like the tabernacle was, but nevertheless show in some of their, uh, in some instances, in some details of their living and their experience, so show, so show certain basic principles that were later to be fulfilled at a higher level. They were what I have called prototypes. I cite merely now one example of that, when God promised Abraham that he would eventually bring his descendants out of Egypt, bring them across the desert, and bring them into their inheritance. That promise was fulfilled at the first level by God's raising up Joshua to do what Moses could not do, and to bring Israel into their inheritance. Historically, then, at the first level, God's promise to Abraham was fulfilled through Joshua. The New Testament makes it clear, however, that Joshua did not complete all that God meant when he made this promise to Abraham and to his seed. Joshua was but a prototype of our blessed Lord Jesus, who came that he might bring us into the promised inheritance at the highest level, at levels that Joshua scarcely dreamed of. When I talk like that about Joshua, I want to point out that I'm not dealing with Joshua as if he were an allegory. I'm leaving him where I found him as a genuine figure in literal history who actually fulfilled God's promise at its first level and brought literal Israel into a very literal Canyon. That is a historical factor. It's not allegory, nor am I allegorizing it when I say that Joshua was a prototype of our blessed Lord. It was done at an infinitely higher level, what Joshua did at the lower level. In calling your attention to similarities between the jumbo jet and the little primitive airplane, I am not allegorizing the primitive airplane. Please, I'm not. Just pointing out the similarity in the basic principles of aeronautics between the two. But now let me move on to another way in which the New Testament uses the old. And here I appeal to what Jude has to tell his fellow believers in his small epistle. His great concern is to warn them against, uh, false teachers that have infiltrated the church. And among the many descriptions he gives of these false teachers is this, verse eleven of his epistle: Woe unto them, for they went in the way of Cain and riot- ran riotously in the error of Balaam for hire and perished in the gainsaying of Korah. He doesn't just say they have committed similar sins to what Cain, Balaam, and Korah committed. You can call it a metaphor if you'd like and say, he says they've gone in the way of Cain. They've run riotously in the error of Balaam. They've perished in the gainsaying of Korah. Jude sees an underlying similarity between the errors of these ancient men and the errors of the false teachers in the church. That much is clear. But in using them, he is definitely, isn't he, alluding to the history of these three uh, enemies of God. He is making an explicit allusion. If I said of a certain Saddam Hussein that he is a modern Hitler, of course you would immediately know what I meant and in what respects I was intending this, uh, to the the phrase Saddam is a modern Hitler. What, we ask, does Jude mean when he says that these false teachers are committing the same errors as Cain, Balaam, and uh, Korah. Korah? Obviously, he is not simply saying all three ancient men were bad men, and these heretics, modern heretics, are bad, full stop. Because badness comes in different forms, doesn't it? And heresies are, have a certain variety in them, which makes them interesting, I suppose. And, uh, you'll see Cain was not exactly the same as Balaam, nor Balaam the same as Korah. They were all false. They were all false in the area of religion, were they not? Cain is to be met soon after his sacrifice. Balaam is met in the area of sacrifice with his altars, and so is Korah. But Cain was not quite so bad as Balaam, because Cain was what we might call a layman, whereas Balaam was a professional prophet. And Korah was worse than Balaam even, because whereas Korah was a professional like Balaam was, you know, but yet Balaam was a pagan old priest. What could you expect? Uh, Korah was a Levite in holy orders, in the very tabernacle of God, in the wilderness. He's the worst of the lot then. There is, you see, a progression staring you in the face, even in these three allusions that Jude chooses to make. The question, therefore, arises with it is an allusion of this type, is how we shall interpret it. How does it help us to know that these false teachers were contemporary Cain? You'll say, well, you'd have to go back and study Cain, wouldn't you? What did Cain do in the religious sphere? Then you'd have to do the same with Balaam, and then you would have to do the same with Korah. You would have to te- take the Old Testament history then very seriously and not jump to conclusions. If I say to you Saddam Hussein is a modern Hitler, and you say, excuse me, I don't know who you're talking about. Who- who's Hitler? Who was Hitler? I say, you know, the old wallpaper man with a funny mustache like Charlie Chaplin, uh, who was in Germany, uh, so I never heard of him. Oh. Well, then calling Saddam Hussein a modern Hitler would fail of its point, wouldn't it, then? Unless you went back in history and read a bit of history and began to take it seriously. And when you started reading history, you'd have to try and distinguish between Hitler and the Duke of Wellington, or even Hitler and Napoleon, wouldn't you? They're rather different people. So, here is the New Testament alluding to the old, and if we're going to pick up the right allusion, we shall now have to go back to Old Testament and do a little bit of hard thinking, and let the rigors of the Old Testament history books guide us in our interpretation of what the allusion is meant to convey. I was discussing this matter once with a young gentleman and saying, you know, what shall we say that the rebellion of Korah was? He said it's a picture of what happens when a congregation disputes with its pastor. Well, I don't know, that could perhaps be, I sort of question the application at, at the primary level anyway. I should think before we settle on that, we better do a lot of thinking. It means taking Old Testament literature seriously. And here I want to pass on a word of exhortation, if I may. It is so easy when you get an old, a New Testament allusion, to jump to conclusions as to what it means, and then you could open yourself to a great deal of a charge of fancifulness. The way to control our interpretation is to go back to the Old Testament itself and look at the book in which these stories come, and to consider it as a whole, not one just incident in isolation, but what its function is within the whole of that history book. There you will get a very serious and inspired account of the happening in its context that will help you to control your interpretation of its original significance, that then taking the original significance, you may bring that over to the New Testament. Yes? So let's try a little, uh, taking of, uh, uh, history, uh, Old Testament history seriously, and concentrate now for a few moments on the rebellion of Korah in the wilderness. But let's go back to the book of Numbers from which it comes. Is that thing working properly? It is. Oh. No. Righty-ho. The story of the rebellion of Korah comes, as you know, gentlemen, in the Book of Numbers and in the second half of that book. The Book of Numbers is in two parts. The first, uh, ten chapters deal with God's provision and preparation of Israel for their coming journey across the wilderness. Chapter eleven begins the second half of the book, which records what actually happened on the wilderness journey, but not everything that happened every day of the week for the forty years they were in the wilderness, of course not. The Holy Spirit guides the historian to select certain major features of, uh, the, um, uh, journey across the wilderness. And what the, uh, historian concentrates on, you will gather if now for a moment you turn to Numbers chapter eleven And follow the major themes of the book from that point onward. Chapter eleven then, And the people were as murmurers. First announcement of Israel murmuring and God's discipline on them. Eleven four. and the mixed multitude that was among them fell a lusting, and God had to discipline them even more severely. Chapter twelve, Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses, and God took a very severe line with Miriam because of it. Things are not progressing too well, are they? Murmurings and lustings and disputings with Moses. And now in chapter thirteen, the spies are sent to spy out Canaan, and when they come back, they give the people their evil report, and chapter fourteen describes how the people refused to go in, rebelled against the Lord, and refused to enter the promised land. You'll see how chapter eleven, from eleven onwards, is building up a picture of rebellion against the Lord, the first major topic to be dealt with on, in the story of the journey. It comes, of course, to its great climax as they refuse to enter into the land, and God says, therefore, all right, they won't enter into the land then, and he swear in his wrath that that generation shouldn't. If they didn't want to, they wouldn't. With all the perversity of human nature, when God said, all right, they won't enter the land, lo and behold, they said, yes, we will. And Moses said, don't, gentlemen, don't, I'm telling you now, don't go up. The Ark of the Lord isn't going to leave the camp anyway. Don't go up against Canaan, but they would have it, and up they went against Canaan, and the king of that country came out and chased them, and they ran away as fast as their hairy little legs would take them. So that at the end of chapter, uh, fourteen, you'll see, you can picture them in your mind's eye, can't you? There they're going, running, their backs turned against the Promised Land, and running as hard as they can go to get away from it. First major rebellion in the book. Chapter fifteen follows with a marvelous contrast. It opens calmly like this: And the Lord spake unto Moses, Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When you be come into the land. Oh, isn't that a delicious contrast? They were all running away from it as hard as they could, and God says to Moses, now tell my people when they be coming to the land. Oh, they're going to come in, are they? One day, yes, they will. And what follows now is, in the early part of fifteen, details of certain sacrifices that they were to offer when they came into the land. There are other things, and my list here before you is not meant to be a full analysis of the contents of the book of Numbers, gentlemen. This is a very, very rough and ready summary of certain major things in the book of Judges. But this rebellion then, starting with small foothill rebellions and going on to the major one of refusal to enter the land is then followed by chapter fifteen, which majors on this question of sacrifices and certain things. And when chapter fifteen is done, oh, look at chapter sixteen. And chapter sixteen and seventeen are about the rebellion of Master Korah. And when there that's over, and the people of Israel are in great consternation, chapter seventeen, verse twelve, they spake to Moses, saying, behold, we perish, we are undone, we are all undone, everyone that cometh near, that cometh near unto the tabernacle of the Lord dieth, shall we perish, all of us. Then chapter eighteen begins God's reply. Chapters eighteen and nineteen are concerned with God's provision for these people, the priestly dues due to Aaron the great high priest and to the Levites, and the great sacrifice of the red heifer in chapter nineteen. And the people strove against Moses, it says, you'll see, and against Aaron, because there was no water. The striving was so bitter that in the end Moses, the meekest man in all the earth, lost his temper with the people and said, hear now, you rebels, must I bring you water out of this rock? And he took his rod and smote the rock when he shouldn't have smitten it. And the book of Numbers categorizes what, uh, Moses did as rebellion against the Lord. Did not sanctify me. This is chapter twenty, verse twenty four. Aaron shall be gathered unto his people, he shall not enter into the land which I have given unto the children of Israel, because you, plural, you and Aaron, rebelled against my word at the waters of Meribah. So here in chapters twenty and twenty one, rebellion of Moses and Aaron, if you please. And, uh, when that is over, chapter twenty two comes along, and it's the story of Balaam. And one feature of Balaam will catch your eye at once, won't you? It's old Balaam and all his old altars and his sacrifices, which he offered to God in a, a, a profoundly mistaken pagan notion that by offering God a whole array of sacrifices, he could twist God's arm and induce God to curse the Israelites and to bless the Moabites, and it didn't work. But the chapters twenty two to twenty four are full of Balaam's useless sacrifices and God's reply, uh, to Balaam. And when that's all over, comes chapter twenty five, and chapter twenty five, gentlemen, and I am not bringing rabbits out of any hats. You'll say there's no rabbits in numbers that I know of anyway. And, uh, in chapter twenty five when Balaam's sacrifices are all over, we have another rebellion. For it is said in chapter twenty five that Israel abode in Shittim, and the people began to commit whoredom with the daughters of Moab, for they called the people unto the sacrifices of their gods, and the people did eat and bow down to their gods. And Israel joined himself unto Baal Peor, and the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel. Another rebellion. And the implications of it fulfill the next chapter. And from chapter twenty eight onwards, there are many things. One of the biggest elements in chapters twenty eight, of course, are the detailed sacrifices to be offered on these days of the different feasts in Israel. They are described in massive detail, and they fill two whole chapters, plus questions of vows and other things. I remind you, this is only a sketch of content. Then, when you come to chapter thirty two, you get what wasn't in fact a rebellion, but looked like one. The thing we had to refer to, uh, last week in our studies. When the two and a half tribes came to Moses with a request that they should be allowed to have as their inheritance the land east of Jordan that God had given to the nation. And Moses thought that they were rebelling and that they were repeating this first rebellion and were refusing, like their ancestors, to go into the land. And they had to explain to Master Moses that they weren't thinking, uh, anything of the sort. They were not rebelling, please. They were prepared to go over Jordan and fight for and with their brethren until the last enemies were destroyed. But please, could they then come back to the inheritance that God had given the nation east of Jer- uh, of the Jordan. And after that come chapters thirty four to thirty six, dealing with the inheritance, and in particular with the cities for the Levites and the cities of refuge for accidental homicides. Now, I bothered to point this out to you, gentlemen. I am concerned that you see that this is not my artificial, uh, listing of the contents. I tried to take you through the actual scripture and point out these are major events. And even if you would prefer to put other things down here somewhere, the point remains that there is in this book of Numbers this succession of rebellion. And the man we're after is Korah. He comes in rebellion number two. And what we're doing is to try and collect evidence for how you would interpret Master Korah. For all Jude has done, dear old Jude, but he hasn't spared us, has he? He he's just said these false teachers are modern Koras. Well, pray what were original Koras then? And before we jump to conclusions, we ought to ask the question historically and from the book of Numbers itself, what did Korah do and stand for in that far off period? And only when we have ascertained that very carefully from the book of Numbers are we in a position to see the point of Jude's remark and thus make use of the chorus story in our description of modern false teachers and heretics. Far from this kind of interpretation emptying the Old Testament of its seriousness of a as a historical book, it demands of you that you take the Old Testament as serious history and understand the history at its original level first. It's for lack of doing that, that so much fancifulness has crept into what is popularly called typology. So for a moment, ge- gentlemen, if you will keep in mind what we're doing it for, allow me to make some observations on this, um, book of Numbers. A whole series of rebellions, four real ones, and a fifth that's an apparent rebellion. For all I know, it might make a series of sermons, gentlemen. You preach. Mm, you're looking around for something to talk about five nights of the week, when, you know, like you get asked to preach five nights a week. For a series. It'd be a bit lugubrious, wouldn't it? But there you are. It would might be unusual even. Wonder when the last time you heard a series of addresses on the rebellions in the book of Numbers. Was it last year or the year before? Anyway, some places might not have heard it. And, uh... There, there. You'll see. Anyway, I was coming around to say that if by any chance you were ever to preach a series of the re- on the rebellions in the wilderness, then you'd have a practical problem. Uh, what would you say Monday night, first rebellion? They were a bad lot, these Israelites in the wilderness, and disobedient and went to the pictures and used too much television and cheated on the stock exchange and refused to go into the land. Don't you be bad like them, you be good. Well, that would make a nice sermon, wouldn't it? Yes. Righto. But whatever would you say Tuesday night? You can't say, well, these were a bad lot, and they cheated, and they, uh, beat the wives up and, uh, did a lot of wrong things. Now don't you rebel and you be good. Well, you might get away with it Tuesday, but Wednesday, if you said the same thing every night, it'd be a bit thin, wouldn't it? Yeah, a rebellion is rebellion is rebellion is rebellion, I know that. But if you're going to take this seriously, it isn't just a row of monotonous same thing all over again. The rebellions were obviously different. They were all rebellion, but you're not going to accuse Moses and Aaron of rebellion in the same sense as the refusal to enter the land, are you? Or to put Moses with Korah. After all, the earth didn't s- open up and swallow up Moses. God buried him. So the very book itself is driving you to do a little differential ju- diagnosis, gentlemen. And you'll have to do it if you're going to give a sound answer to Jude, you know. What is the the gainsaying of Korah? I think I used it last week, let me use it again. The tool that doctors use in diagnosis, differential diagnosis, is a very useful tool for students of scripture, you know. If three men come to a doctor and present with a sore throat, the doctor, let's hope at any rate, does not say, all, all sore throats, each take a bottle of Aspro's each. No, no. I first of all examines each one separately, because while they've all got the s- a sore throat, the cause may be different. This chap has been shouting at one of these football matches, you see, for his heroes, and he's gone roar of the throat. He needs to be sent to bed with a hot drink, you'll see, and and torch scents, uh, you'll see, uh, and that's that, that will cure him. And the second man, however, no, no, no, it's different with him. He poor man's got laryngitis and will have to be given some antibiotics. And this third man is more serious. The doctor takes a swab and sends it up to the laboratory. He fears the man may have cancer of the throat. How did he do that? Well, you see, he he first of all said it's sore throat, but then he looked at all the other particulars, you'll say, sore throat here, but there's no lumps, and there's no evidence of, uh, infection in this chap. You'll say. And what's he been doing? He's been to this football match. Oh, that explains it. Uh, this chap, his tonsils are terribly swollen, he feels the glands in his neck. Oh dear, dear, dear, the glands are swelling up. There's poison in the system. This man has sore throat. Oh, but there are certain other tell fo- telltale features as well in him that weren't in him, you'll see. Differential diagnosis. We've got to do it with a series of rebellions, haven't we, to make, to see what their point is. They were all rebels. They weren't all guilty of the same rebellion. What are the differences between this rebellion and that rebellion and that rebellion and the other rebellion? To help us in our task, of course, we have the New Testament references to these rebellions. The basic principles in this rebellion are brought to our attention in Hebrews chapter three and four. So the night you discuss this rebellion, Monday night, isn't it, you're going to discuss it? Monday night, you discuss this rebellion, you'll be quoting large chunks of Hebrews three and 4. When you come to the rebellion with Baal Peor, you won't be quoting Hebrews three and four. You'll be quoting one Corinthians chapter ten, And you'll notice how the same terms are used. Here the text says that when Israel joined herself to Baal Peor, God was jealous. She had left her true husband and gone after another lord, another Baal, another husband. And Israel were only, uh, saved the complete destruction because a certain Phineas was jealous with the Lord's jealousy and executed God's judgment upon his brethren. And when that incident is referred to as it is in one Corinthians ten, listen, Paul is saying you cannot eat the table of the Lord and the table of demons. Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than he is? The New Testament, gentlemen, has a very uncanny way of knowing what it's doing when it cites the Old Testament. Who fancy that? And it gets it su- with superb accuracy, of course. No blundering here. This is an example of a rebellion, I repeat, that stirred the very jealousy of God by its nature. That is not said of this first rebellion, nor of the second one, for that matter. This one stirred God's jealousy. And when it's quoted in the New Testament, Paul in the very same context, talks about God being jealous. So if this night, you on Monday night, is it, you are, uh, uh, quoting Hebrews three and four, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday night, you'll be quoting one Corinthians ten, won't you? And perhaps two Corinthians, uh, two eleven, where the idea of jealousy reoccurs. We're doing, therefore, a little differential diagnosis, and here comes Master Korah. What was the nature of his rebellion? He wasn't refusing to go into the Promised Land. He wasn't proposing to worship another god like Baal Peor. What did he do, and what was there so serious about what he did? Well, in the history, what he did was to collect a lot of chaps around him, uh, you'll see, and they rose up against Moses and Aaron, and they said, you take too much upon yourselves, you Moses and Aaron, seeing that all the people is holy. They rose up to dispute the authority and the office of Moses and Aaron. Korah was a Levite. Aaron was Moses were Levites, of course, they came of that tribe. And what the man was saying is this. Look here, Moses, you say that you are the great prophet sent from God, and all we have to bow exactly to what you say because you are the one that, uh, brings God's special revelation to us, and that we dispute, Moses. You take too much on yourself. Just because you happened to walk up Mount Sinai one afternoon and got a few words from God, that doesn't mean to say that you're the only one that gives the voice of God. We are as equally authoritative as of you. And as for Aaron, you look at him going in there on the, on the Day of Atonement and being the only one that can go into the presence of God. We're told that we need a high priest to make atonement for us. We're telling you now, we don't need Aaron. All the people are holy. We don't need any mediator between us and God. They disputed the apostle of their faith, that is Moses, sent from God, and they disputed the high priest of their confession, that is Aaron. Very modern men they were. And I have must resist the temptation to go further and to discuss their details. But you'll see it is that that the New Testament fastens on, isn't it? They have perished in what of Korah? In In the the gain gainsaying, sa- Old English gainsaying, which means to say against. We'll say rebellion, if you like, about disputing with Moses and Aaron and denying their authority. We'll say the gainsaying of Korah. Now that's very interesting because the New Testament itself uses that same. It's the Greek word antilogia. And the New Testament uses the word antilogia in other places. Um, Hebrews chapter twelve. Consider him who endured such, here King James Version, contradiction. Again, saying is good English and Germanic. Um, contradiction is the Latin side of our language, to speak against. It's the equivalent of antilogia, speaking against. But now, if you consider the use of antilogia in Hebrews chapter twelve, you will see to what serious event it is referring. Consider him, that is our blessed Lord, who endured such contradiction of sinners against himself. When? Well, primarily and above all else, at Calvary. This wasn't a question of members disputing with the parson in church or something. This was the whole nation of Israel doing what Korah and Dathan and Abiram had done in the wilderness, only doing it at the high level. For when Messiah came, he came as the apostle of God, the sent one of God to Israel. And as he returned, he was to return as their great high priest, their mediator between God and man, and Israel would have neither. When Pilate was willing to let him go, they spoke against him and denied the holy and the just, and alas, Israel officially denies him still. They will not have him either as their Ma- Messiah or their great high priest. And that's not the end of the matter, gentlemen. There are many in Christendom who deny him in that very self same way too. They deny that he is specially authoritative when it comes to the revelation of God to men, and will happily tell you that Jesus Christ was mistaken, and in some things they know better than Jesus Christ. Then they will turn around and tell you they need no mediator between God and man. God doesn't need any sacrifices before he forgives anybody. They don't need somebody to make atonement for them. That is Christendom doing what Korah did in the wilderness, only doing it at the much higher level. And we can check that exposition, can't we, by seeing exactly what they said and what their colleagues went on to say, and what answer God made to Korah, what evidence he supplied to Korah and the Israelites that Moses and Aaron were indeed his divine appointees. But it's a very different rebellion from either refusal to enter into the land or the rebellion that Moses and Aaron fell into when under tremendous pressure in the wilderness. And the difficulty of the way, and the unreasonableness of the Israelites, and people like Balaam buzzing around using black magic and calling upon satanic powers to curse Israel. And temporarily, and for a moment, Moses and Aaron crumbling under the pressure and losing their tempers, falling into a certain kind of rebellion. Gentlemen, before you blame them too badly, think of yourself. And remember what you who have praised God here today might experience next year. How you too might be so downcast and pressed beyond measure that you might be tempted to rebel in heart and perhaps in tongue against the ways of God. Incidentally, gentlemen, of course, the whole thing sets up, doesn't it, other questions, interesting questions here. I mustn't be tempted there, but, um, we'll say just, just for completion's sake, here they refuse to enter in, and the last thing you see of them at the end of fourteen is running away, to be followed immediately by God's word to Moses, and when you be come into the land. I like the kind of contrast. And here come sacrifices when you become into the land, and the thing is such a contrast to this refusal to enter in that you begin to ask yourselves questions. Oh, and has what God says in fifteen anything to do with what happened in the immediately pre- uh, uh, uh, preceding chapter? Yeah. Well, when you're finished with the rebellion of Korah, of course, the people are in such consternation they say we shall die, and God repeats his appointment of Aaron and the Levites and deals with the sacrifices. Yes, chapters eighteen and nineteen are an obvious reply to the rebellion. Well, gentlemen, if fifteen is an answer to eleven to fourteen, and eighteen to nineteen are an answer to sixteen to seventeen. Can you show if and how chapters twenty two to twenty four are an answer to Moses' rebellion? Can you show how tra- chapters twenty eight to thirty one are an answer to the rebellion of the Baal Peor? Perhaps they're not. It might be worth investigating nonetheless, wouldn't it? But we mustn't be tempted to dwell on things like that. I'm coming to the end of your endurance and due to the end of the evening, and the point I was making is this. We must beware of fancifulness, of course we must, in the interpretation and application of Old Testament. We must not jump to conclusions. If we would properly understand what Jude is saying when he characterizes false teachers, some of them as being modern coras, then to interpret that delusion properly, we must take the time to understand what the ancient cora stood for. And part of that process will involve comparing his rebellion with the other rebellions, so by dint of differential diagnosis, you may come up with what God intended when he troubled to write about Korah's, uh, rebellion and compared and contrasted it with the other rebellion. If you do that, of course, you will get a comprehensive view of rebellions, which is a funny topic, isn't it? But there it is. It isn't an exhaustive commentary on rebellion. It is a comprehensive one that will give you the typical kind of rebellions that are apt to occur in the life of the people of God. And what's wrong with them, and what answers God has for them. And that will bring you safely back to Master Jude. And there you can, uh, uh, uh, begin to apply the further check of the New Te- the way the New Testament uses the terms involved. I refer to the question of chorus speaking against Moses and Aaron, as distinct from refusing the others refusing to go into the land, speaking against Moses and Aaron. And it is the, uh, feature that the New Testament takes up, the antilogia of Korah, his speaking against Moses and Aaron, and then applies the same word in Hebrews twelve, the contradiction of sinners against our blessed Lord, first at the level of the Jewish nation officially, then warning us that modern heretics in the church, modern false teachers in the church, will do to our blessed Lord what Korah, Dathan, and Abiram did to Moses and Aaron, and what the Jewish nation did when they disputed the claims of Jesus, the apostle and high priest of our confession. Other things I have to say, but I mustn't say them now. We shall have to adjourn until tomorrow, gentlemen.