Old Testament Expectations

With today's post I begin to look at Jesus in the context of politics. As is always the case, Jesus transforms whatever he touches.

The Old Testament contains several passages that speak of God’s promised Messiah, the one who would deliver Israel from her enemies and establish his permanent reign of righteousness. As we have seen, the religious and political climate of first-century Judea fueled expectations of the imminent arrival of such a deliverer. These passages (except for the last) are representative of the hopes of many in Israel.

1) Genesis 49:10-12: The promise of an ultimate king from the line of Judah.

2) Psalm 2: The supremacy of God’s chosen king.

3) Psalm 24: The identification of God with the King of glory.

4) Jeremiah 23:1-8: The promise of a righteous king; God provides for his people to take care of them.

5) Ezekiel 34:20-31: The idyllic king portrayed as the faithful shepherd, established by God.

6) Zechariah 9:9-10: The coming king.

7) Isaiah 52:13-53:12: The passage that many in Israel neglected to incorporate into their thinking—God’s suffering servant, the one who dies to redeem his people. Subsequent Jewish biblical commentary has tended to identify Israel herself, rather than Messiah, as the suffering servant.

Old Testament Case Studies in Government: Daniel

I conclude this brief overview of godly men, leadership, and politics in the Old Testament with a look at Daniel. He was taken into exile in Babylon as a young man and early on earmarked by the Babylonians for potential service within their governmental system.

Daniel 1:1-21: Here is an introduction to the situation faced by Daniel and his compatriots, with specific mention of how they held their convictions in the face of pressure to conform and ended up being vindicated.

Daniel 2:46-49: Nebuchadnezzar, in recognition of Daniel's gifts, sets him in high authority in Babylon, even over many native officials.

Daniel 3:8-30: Daniel's friends, previously placed by Daniel in similarly high authority, choose conscience over convenience. God again vindicates their faithful obedience.

Daniel 6:10-23: Jealous rivals conspire against Daniel and manage to bring about official condemnation. But Daniel remains unyielding, meekly in the real sense of that word, and God defends him. At the end, he is once again raised up while his rivals who meant to harm him met their deaths.

Although these servants got in trouble by obeying God rather than men, their actions ended up being celebrated by their earthly masters. We cannot always count on this--there have been many who laid down their lives rather than compromise with earthly rulers--but the reward for faithfulness to God is greater than the approval of men.

Old Testament Case Studies in Government: David

David is perhaps the paradigmatic human ruler of Israel. He receives a covenant from God regarding his throne and Scripture looks forward to the enthronement of "David's greater Son" as the fulfillment of that covenantal promise. How did David rule?

2 Samuel 5:1-5: A summary of how David came to be made king over all Israel (he was first king over Judah; the other tribes accepted him seven years later).

2 Samuel 7:1-28: The Davidic covenant and David's prayer of gratitude and thanksgiving. As king, David was most concerned that God be glorified and obeyed.

2 Samuel 9:1-13: David's kindness to Mephibosheth. An excellent example of grace and clemency, desirable qualities in a godly ruler.

What does it mean to rule as God's anointed? Obviously this is a circumstance very few leaders can legitimately claim for themselves. In the United States, we witnessed a great deal of criticism of former president George W. Bush for his remarks that he believed God wanted him to be president at the time he served. Evidently his critics don't believe in the sovereignty of God, that God raises up kings and nations and brings them down again according to his good purposes. It seemed to them Mr. Bush was being prideful when all he was really stating was a theological obviousness.

Old Testament Case Studies in Government: Samuel

After the conquest of Canaan, Israel for several hundred years was ruled by a series of judges, persons of varying character and ability whom God raised up often in response to a moral or military crisis in the nation. The cycle observed in the Book of Judges is one of Israel's descent into sin and idolatrous rebellion against God, divine chastisement (often in the form of incursions by surrounding pagan nations), a crying out to God for deliverance, God's appointing a judge to deal with the crisis and get the nation back on track, and then a period of spiritual and material prosperity leading back into a time of forgetfulness and eventually sin. An excellent illustration of this pattern is found in Judges 2:7-23; a shorter version appears in 1 Samuel 12:10-11.

Samuel was the last in the line of people who judged Israel.

1 Samuel 7:15-8:9: This passage begins with a description of how Samuel conducted his business as judge, then moves into an account of the failure of the next generation--his sons "turned aside after dishonest gain, took bribes, and perverted justice." This occasioned Israel's demand for a king. Samuel warned them thoroughly what this would mean at the command of God, who told Samuel that Israel was not rejecting him but God himself.

This style of government depends heavily on having the right person for the job. In the hands of a godly man like Samuel the nation was ruled righteously. But even then the leader can do only so much--if the people fail the nation falls.

Old Testament Case Studies in Government: Joseph

I mentioned Joseph yesterday as one of the patriarchs, although he is not classically included in that category. Scripture depicts him, however, as a man of unusual political influence, and that in a country foreign to his people.

Genesis 39:1-6a: Joseph started small--he was faithful in little things. Brought as a slave to Egypt, he did such a good job working for his new Egyptian master that he quickly rose to a position of responsibility. So great was Potiphar's confidence in the abilities of Joseph that he gave no thought for his business and household affairs except for the meal he was presently eating.

Genesis 41:33-57: After a period of unjust condemnation (occasioned by a false witness) Joseph again rose in the esteem of his foreign overlords. Pharaoh recognized his talents, and Joseph responded by exercising his new responsibilities with competence, to the great benefit of the people he served.

Genesis 47:13-26: Through his stewardship, Joseph was able to prevent mass starvation. The consequence of this was to bring everything within Egypt under the control of Pharaoh. And yet the people regarded him as a savior and not a tyrant.

Old Testament Case Studies in Government: Abraham

A common model of government in the early history of the people of God was the patriarch, a man who was the acknowledged head of a household or clan, including the attached servants and helping hands. Abraham was one such patriarch.

Genesis 12:1-6 depicts God's initial call to Abram (as he was originally styled) out of the land of his ancestors into "a land that I will show you." He was the head of a small band of relatives and servants who packed up their possessions and hit the road in obedience to God's command.

Genesis 13:1-9 depicts Abram as, having prospered greatly during a temporary stay in Egypt, returning to Canaan. He and his nephew Lot had so much livestock that the land could not support all of it in one place. Abram acted as a peacemaker (for there had been contention between his servants and Lot's servants over land use) and leader by arranging for a workable settlement. And he was gracious enough to let Lot pick the best land. His object was the wisest use of people and possessions to engender prosperity for all.

Genesis 14:11-16 depicts Abram as the defender of his family, an able military commander who conducted an effective action against foreign threats. He was professionally a man of agriculture and trade but when the need arose he was able to protect his family interests through use of necessary force.

Other examples of patriarchs described in Genesis are Isaac, Jacob, Esau, and Joseph.

Divine Mandates for Human Government

Isaiah 1:16-17 and Micah 6:8 offer a convenient summary of the biblical mandate for the behavior of societies as well as individuals:

1) Cease to do evil.

2) Learn to do good.

3) Do/seek justice.

4) Love kindness.

5) Rebuke the oppressor.

6) Defend the fatherless and plead for the widow.

7) Walk humbly with God.

All of these are tall orders for even the best earthly government just as they are for each individual. But this is the standard to which we are called.

Political Images in Scripture, Part Two

Here are the remaining items in Dr. Barr's list:

4) The eschatological image: Evoking a vision of a new world to come and hence a new world order in which God will restore all things and banish evil, re-establishing his direct rule over his creation. Political upheaval and violence are often seen as heralds of God’s actions in human history (Mark 13:7-8). Such a viewpoint can encourage isolationism, interventionalism, and sympathy for revolution.

5) The image of migration/pilgrimage: The people of God are wanderers, pilgrims, strangers in a strange land. This world is not their home—they are seeking a better country (Hebrews 11:13-16). Separatist movements, self-exile, colonization are common embodiments of this idea.

6) The image of liberation: The redemptive picture of the Exodus—God freeing his people from an oppressor. Solidarity of the people of God with the downtrodden, the poor, the burdened; seeking deliverance from evil circumstances. But the Hebrews of old were not asked to issue calls for social reform in Egypt, and when they went to Canaan they subjugated (even massacred) the inhabitants there.

And this is likely not an exhaustive list. We can readily see, then, that the task of identifying the political perspective of Scripture is not easy. People with particular worldviews have often been able to go to the Bible and find corroboration or encouragement for their ideas and goals. Searching out the whole counsel of Scripture is our charge. Because there is ultimately one Author of Scripture we may be confident that a unified perspective is contained therein--we must be diligent to discern his voice and submit to it.

Political Images in Scripture, Part One

Dr. Barr (professor of Hebrew at Vanderbilt University and Oxford University) perceives six distinct ways of considering politics in Scripture. Here are the first three:

1) The theocratic image: God has directed how human societies should be governed, most particularly in the Mosaic law. Human leaders are surrogates for God and rule with delegated authority (see Romans 13:1). Church and state are partners. Biblical problems with this idea center on the legitimacy of assumed delegated authority—when Israel demanded a king, God considered this rebellion against his established rule through judges (1 Samuel 8:1-9; compare Deuteronomy 17:1).

2) The alien state: The Israelites regarded the governments of the surrounding nations as anti-God and threats to their national safety; the prophets are full of words of judgment against the nations. Yet Jesus (as we will explore in greater detail later) seemed to take a far more neutral stance, saying little if anything against the civil government and speaking of his kingdom as “not of this world.”

3) The prophetic image: The prophets called for social justice and warned Israel of judgment in the form of political and cultural subjection by the surrounding nations. The role of the church, then, was to be the conscience of the state. In this case, the prophetic image conflicts with the theocratic image—God has seen fit to overthrow established authorities deemed abusive toward the people and hence disobedient to him. Yet the prophetic call to reform was usually cast in religious and not political terms—Israel was to return to the true worship of God and away from idols.

Authority Spheres

Chapter XXIII of the Confession is entitled "Of the Civil Magistrate" (you knew I had to go there eventually). The first paragraph reads as follows:

"God, the supreme Lord and King of all the world, has ordained civil magistrates, to be, under Him, over the people, for His own glory, and the public good: and, to this end, has armed them with the power of the sword, for the defence and encouragement of them that are good, and for the punishment of evil doers."

Some have written that government is a necessary evil. I disagree. In my previous posts, although it may have been rather subtle, I have built a case that government is a positive good, a creation ordinance--God governs, and man created in his image is charged with government--and that good government is all the more necessary given the fallen moral state of man.

But not all government is equal. There exist spheres of authority, a concept most commonly associated with Abraham Kuyper, the Dutch Reformed thinker and one-time prime minister of the Netherlands. In brief, it can be asserted that the supreme authority is God himself and that under him there are divinely-appointed secondary authorities: the civil government, the church, and the family. Because human relationships are multifaceted there will be some overlap of these spheres, but there will also be areas in which each sphere operates exclusively (under God, of course) of the others. Later posts will spend some time fleshing these ideas out. But next I turn my attention to some political images seen in the Bible, drawing upon the work of James Barr.

Why Men Require Government II: Their Moral State

Chapter IV, paragraph 2: "After God had made all other creatures, He created man, male and female, with reasonable and immortal souls, endued with knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness, after His own image; having the law of God written in their hearts, and power to fulfil it: and yet under a possibility of transgressing, being left to the liberty of their own will, which was subject unto change. Beside this law written in their hearts, they received a command not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, which while they kept, they were happy in their communion with God, and had dominion over the creatures."

Chapter VI, paragraphs 1 and 2: "Our first parents, being seduced by the subtilty and temptation of Satan, sinned in eating the forbidden fruit. This their sin God was pleased, according to His wise and holy counsel, to permit, having purposed to order it to His own glory. By this sin they fell from their original righteousness and communion with God, and so became dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the faculties and parts of soul and body."

Man was created as originally innocent but fell into sin. If government was part of the original created order--as we saw yesterday, God governs his creation, and man was given dominion over the creations to govern them--how much more necessary is it when sin is introduced and disrupts the relationships between God and men and between men?

Why Men Require Government I: Creatureliness

Two paragraphs from the Westminster Confession of Faith help answer the question of the necessity of government--in part because men are creatures, contingent beings.

Chapter IV, paragraph 1: "It pleased God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, for the manifestation of the glory of his eternal power, wisdom, and goodness, in the beginning, to create, or make of nothing, the world, and all things therein whether visible or invisible, in the space of six days; and all very good."

Chapter V, paragraph 1: "God the great Creator of all things doth uphold, direct, dispose, and govern all creatures, actions, and things, from the greatest even to the least, by his most wise and holy providence, according to his infallible foreknowledge, and the free and immutable counsel of his own will, to the praise of the glory of his wisdom, power, justice, goodness, and mercy."

While there are many things to learn from these two paragraphs, the point here is that God has authority over his creatures; their origin from and dependency upon him grant him lordship. Because he made them he knows best how they are meant to function. God governs men and he would do so even if they had never departed from their original state as created. This matter will concern us in my next post.

The Political Situation in Early First Century Judea

If we are to learn from Jesus, and indeed all of his word, regarding politics it is helpful to know something of the context in which he lived and taught.

I begin with a brief history of post-exhilic Israel. The southern tribes returned in part to the land in the late fifth century BC under Persian sponsorship and rebuilt the city and walls of Jerusalem. About one hundred years later, however, the Persians and their empire, including the Jewish lands, fell to Alexander the Great. His successors ruled the area, bringing Hellenization but also increasing oppression, until the Maccabean Revolt in the 160s BC restored Jewish religious freedom. The war for political independence achieved success in 142 BC but the process of adopting Greek ways, at least by the ruling classes, continued.

The principal players in Judean politics in the early first century included the Romans, the Herodians, and the Jewish religious parties.

1) The Romans: Far and away the dominant power in the ancient Mediterranean world, the Romans added Palestine to their empire when Pompey the Great occupied Jerusalem in 63 BC. The region was created the Roman province of Judea. Initially they tried to rule the province through local leadership, but by the time of Jesus’ public ministry a substantial territory was under the direct control of a Roman governor and the peace enforced by a Roman army.

2) Herod and his family: Herod, an Idumean [descendant of Edom] proselyte to Judaism, was created king by the Romans in 37 BC. He was an effective and productive, if somewhat ruthless, ruler. Upon his death in 4 BC his kingdom was divided amongst his three sons: Philip took the northeast; Herod Antipas the region of Galilee and Perea; and Archelaus had Judea, Samaria, and Idumea, but only until AD 6, and after that these regions were ruled by Roman procurators.

3) The religious parties: There were four main divisions. (a) The Pharisees were the party of religious and cultural purity. Orthodox Jews, they wanted to preserve distinctive Jewish religious and cultural values. Politically, they were conservatives. Religious quietists who developed an elaborate oral tradition concerning the Law, they were not actively involved in political life except where matters affected their own self interest but were generally considered to represent the opposition party. They resisted Hellenization. They are the religious ancestors of the Hasidic Jews. (b) The Sadducees were religious liberals. Like many liberals today they did not believe in a resurrection or a life to come, and consequently put their energies into politics and the affairs of this life, in partnership with the Roman administration. They actively collaborated with the Hasmoneans and then the Herodians and remained the chief political party until the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. (c) The Zealots were at the opposite end of the political spectrum. Fanatical Jewish nationalists, they were crusaders, freedom fighters, and revolutionaries dedicated to the overthrow of Roman tyranny, if necessary by means of terrorism and violence. (d) the Essenes, a separatist group that lived in community on the shores of the Dead Sea. They expected the imminent arrival of the Messiah and the consummation of God’s final victory over his enemies.

A Definition of Politics

Here's a reasonable one:

“The art and/or science of government; that part of ethics which has to do with the regulation and government of a nation or state, the preservation of its safety, peace, and prosperity, the defense of its existence and rights against foreign control or conquest, the augmentation of its strength and resources, and the protection of its citizens in their rights, with the preservation and improvement of their morals. The management of a political party; the conduct and contests of parties with reference to political measures or the administration of public affairs; the advancement of candidates to office; in a bad sense, artful or dishonest management to secure the success of political candidates or parties; political trickery.”

Another succinct summary of what I call the elements of politics is the following. It may sound familiar to some.

1) To form a more perfect union

2) To establish justice

3) To ensure domestic tranquility

4) To provide for the common defense

5) To promote the general welfare

6) To ensure the blessings of liberty to the current and subsequent generations (otherwise known as the posterity)

A New Series: Jesus and Politics

Over the next several weeks I plan to write on the subject of politics from what I believe is a biblical perspective. Clearly it is impossible to cover the entire scope of politics and church-state relations here. However, I will look closely at what the Bible and particularly Jesus have to say on the subject, and spend some time identifying important Christian contributions to political thought. I’ll ask and try to answer the question whether the United States is or ever was a Christian nation. I’ll consider some contemporary Christian criticism of standard political philosophies, drawing upon the work of J. Budzieszewski, a UT-Austin professor of philosophy and government; the book he edited entitled Evangelicals in the Public Square will be a major source. And I’ll examine the 2008 document called “An Evangelical Manifesto.”

I am fully aware this is a contentious subject but I am confident it can be discussed in a manner befitting Christ’s people to the glory of God. I will endeavor to maintain an atmosphere of balance—if I am successful, you will not know for sure my political persuasion or preferences.

We'll start tomorrow with a definition of politics.

Ligonier 2009 Wrap-Up

Over the years, I've learned there are three things I can always count on happening when I attend the national conference:

1) I will learn far more than I expected and the days just whiz by.

2) My posterior is not suited for three days of sitting.

3) Dr. Sproul will repeat one (or more) of his stories, allowing me to sit back and enjoy the break from taking notes for several minutes.

I've gotten more disciplined about the conference bookstore. Used to be out of control--every time I visited the place I'd come out with another purchase. But the past couple of years I mentally set myself a modest budget and I've been able to stick to it. I still think there's books left over from last year in my "to read" pile. Oh, well.

Tomorrow I hope to embark upon that "Jesus and Politics" series I promised before I left for Orlando. There will also be a review of a recent book called Evangelical Does Not Equal Republican...or Democrat that I found in the local library last week.

A Consuming Fire: Holiness, Wrath, and Justice

As is his wont, Dr. Sproul concluded the conference. His text was 1 Chronicles 13:1-14.

We live in a culture and sadly in a church that doesn't consider God to be holy. If we do understand he is holy, there is no grasp of his justice; and if we do understand holiness and justice, we will not want to hear about God's wrath. We much prefer God's love, compassion, and grace. We assume grace. We are not amazed by grace. The text provides one example of the outbreak of God's wrath found in Scripture. This often forms one basis of criticism against Scripture's inspiration--according to this line, the Bible is just the product of a prescientific nomadic people lacking sophistication, attributing a man's sudden death to an offended deity. It is alleged the portrayal of this wrathful God is out of character with the NT concept of God. These passages need to be looked at again, to find out what's going on. This episode was supposed to be a joyous occasion. David brings the ark back from where it rested after capture and then release by the Philistines. He had a special ox cart built to transport the ark. Musicians, choirs, dancers. But one ox stumbles and the cart tilts. The ark is in immediate danger of falling onto the ground. Uzza instinctively (probably) seeks to prevent this and puts his hand on the ark to steady it. Instantly he is struck dead. Commentators have tried to produce naturalistic explanations or even attribute arbitrariness or darkness to God. Evidently these people never read Numbers 4, the instructions as to the care of the sacred vessels of the tabernacle. The ark, designed by God himself, had rings built in so that it could be transported by wooden rods, carried by the Kohathites on foot (not on carts). They would never have direct contact with the ark. There is an explicit warning not to touch the ark or else death results. Uzza was probably a Kohathite and should have known better. According to Jonathan Edwards, Uzza was guilty of arrogance. He assumed contact with the ground would be a greater sacrilege than contact with a human hand. Yet the earth does not defile the throne of God as does the touch of sinful man. Uzza had profaned the most holy object in all of Israel. Leviticus 10:1ff. Nadab and Abihu offering profane fire. They were also executed summarily by God for this offense. Experimental worship--innovative. God determines what is pleasing to him. [Cited the attractions of idolatry as demonstrated in the golden calf incident.] When Uzza was executed, David got angry. He had a hard time with God's wrath. What do we suppose Aaron's reaction was to the death of his sons? Leviticus 10:3--a reminder of God's requirement that all who approach him must regard him as holy. Instead, Nadab and Abihu came in profanity. Give a thought to how we come to and participate in worship. The relatives were instructed to remove the bodies outside the camp and were forbidden to mourn their deaths. Citation of Edwards' "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God." Sproul said typically it was assigned in American lit classes as an example of sadistic preaching (although a true sadist wouldn't bother to warn people of God's wrath). The text for this sermon was "their feet shall slip in due time." Their fall was inevitable without repentence. The dam metaphor used by Edwards--God's wrath is heaping up and threatens to break forth at any time. The bow metaphor--the bow is bent and the arrow is aimed at your heart; the only thing holding back your doom is God's hand. The spider metaphor--hanging by one slender thread over the fire; the flames of wrath are burning all around. The sermon actually teaches the grace of God. Is it scary anymore? No one believes in hell these days. We all lie to ourselves that we have nothing to worry about from God. Edwards asked his congregationif there was any reason apart from God's grace why they were still alive. Sproul recounted the incident of students and late term papers from early in his teaching career as an illustration of justice and grace and the way we take advantage of grace.

In the middle of his sermon, Dr. Sproul recommended "Gospel Worship" by Jeremiah Burroughs as important reading for everyone.

The Third Q&A Session, Part Two

8) Is it possible for a nonelect person to truly want to be elect? No.

9) Contextualization? That is, putting the gospel into the context of the local cultural milieu. Because we're finite we inevitably think in a particular framework. But this can be taken too far, especially in postmodern thought. Adapting the gospel to a particular culture? It is wise to begin with where those you are trying to reach are, but recognize that no culture will accept the Bible. God is in the process of of creating a new people that will subvert the existing culture. Maintaining ethnic boundaries weakens our love for the church.

10) Predestination, election, and John 3:16. The verse is a call to faith, to belief in Christ. Predestination is best understood as a hedge against pride. We can't be boastful of our faith. What do you have that you have not been given? The believer is not better than those who don't believe, although he's certainly better off. Note the position of Paul's discussion of election in Romans and then in Ephesians. It is not fruitful to discuss this with unbelievers. "A family secret." Per Dr. Carson: a) That God is absolutely and utterly sovereign does not mitigate human responsibility, and b) human beings are responsible but not so as to make God absolutely contingent. What is the right way to balance a) and b)?

11) Did the fathers before Augustine teach the doctrines of grace? Each generation wrestles with peculiar problems of their times and cultures. Thomas Oden has shown that ideas of justification were present in the early fathers but it has to be admitted they didn't get everything right. So as with the doctrines of grace.

12) The difference between a prophet and a preacher. "Prophet" should not be applied in the sense of new revelation given authoritatively. Look at the range of meanings of these words in Scripture.

13) How to be an effective preacher with all the burdens we carry. Four-five hours in the morning devoted to study. The better educated you are before going into the ministry the more effective/efficient you can be in the pastorate. The most important way to serve the congregation is the right preaching and teaching of the word. Plan to pray, plan to study. Things will change according to the different stages of life.

The Third Q&A Session, Part One

First of all, a blessed Easter to everyone in the name of the risen Christ.

Thabiti Anyabwile, D. A. Carson, Robert Godrey, R. C. Sproul, and Derek Thomas participated in the third and final question/answer session.

1) A questioner perceived a de-emphasis on general revelation in Reformed theology. The panel disputed the question's point. General revelation brings knowledge of God and his goodness but does not bring the gospel. Book I of the Institutes is largely an exposition of the uses of general revelation.

2) How does one handle a poor work atmosphere, closed to the gospel? TA worked in a liberal policy thinktank in DC for six years. In many ways it was a hostile environment. Be faithful stewards of the mysteries of God, be joyful in one's relationship with God, and don't be bashful. Instead, be thankful that God has sent this one into the harvest field. We must love these people and not be afraid or resentful of them. It's a danger for us to love ideas more than people.

3) What challenges are there to the holiness of God in churches today? [Question not well worded--nothing challenges the holiness of God.] The church has become a poor cousin of commercial enterprise, filling gaps in perceived human need. Avoidance of suffering. Decline of honoring the Lord's Day, which does not allow for adequate time with him. The preaching of the word is one of the most important means of sanctification.

4) As a pastor of new church, a congregation of mostly all new Christians, from what biblical books should he preach first? It's all God's word, but would emphasize those portions that explain the gospel. Don't go slowly or with painstaking exegetical series taking years. Get congregations to know their Bibles, get a thorough grounding in the gospel. Use one of the catechisms as a framework of instruction.

5) Growing in the grace of God. Working out God's grace given us in Christ Jesus. We are increasingly transformed into his likeness. Outworkings in behavior, speech, thinking patterns.

6) What motivation is there for evangelism if one is a Calvinist? Guaranteed success. The same God who ordained the elect ordained the means. God's sovereignty underpins perseverance in evangelism.

7) Are we all equally sinful? We are all equally guilty. "Gilead"--distinction between honorable sinners and dishonorable sinners. Any gradation in sin is "small potatoes" compared to being a sinner at all. Jesus did recognize differences in degree, and the apostles recognized that hardness of heart mattered.

Be Ye Holy: The Necessity of Sanctification

Dr. Derek Thomas spoke next, taking 1 Peter 1:13-25 as his text. The point of all theology is to drive us into Christlikeness. We are saved to be holy. Start to think biblically, Christianly--get your mind ready. What do you think about when you're not thinking about anything? The answer is an indication of your spiritual state. 1 Samuel 1-2, Hebrews 2. We share in the holiness of Christ. Our sanctification is accomplished by our being brought into gospel union with Christ. We are children, part of a family, and must bear the family reputation. There will be a judgment and we must give an account.

Wounded for Our Transgressions: The Holiness of God and the Cross

I honestly did not plan it to come out this way (someone else must have), but this is certainly appropriate for Good Friday.

Dr. W. Robert Godfrey, the president of Westminster Theological Seminary in California, spoke on the atonement. The American attitude toward sin is that we like it and we like it that God indulges us and forgives readily. This is, of course, a complete lie. If we don't know God and don't know ourselves we don't know anything worthwhile. American church life is trivial--we are a country full of Christianettes. Isaiah 6:1-7. The reign of King Uzziah (background information in 2 Chronicles 26), a good king who reigned 52 years and did many wonderful things. Judah prospered under him materially. But he became proud and desired to fulfill the role of priest as well as king (in imitation of surrounding pagan cultures and even some of the kings of Israel). God's judgment was to strike him with leprosy, which ended up being his legacy. It was in the year that Uzziah died in disgrace after trying to exalt himself that Isaiah had his vision of the exalted Lord. Isaiah sees the true king high and lifted up. Quite a contrast. What is the significance of the smoke? It's a common Scriptural description of the surroundings of God--his glory, his inapproachability, his veiledness. Maybe also an allusion to the altar of incense. God is very serious about how he is to be worshipped and how sinners may not approach him without the provisions he has stipulated. Isaiah is acutely aware of his sin and unworthiness and his helplessness. A seraph purges his lips with a burning coal from the altar. God initiates and accomplishes salvation. Isaiah 52:13-53:12. Only Messiah is rightly priest-king. We tend to take lightly the cost of salvation, what Christ had to give up, to endure, to pay. Psalm 116.

A Holy Nation: The Church's High Calling

In one of the more universally praised sermons of the conference, Dr. D. A. Carson stepped up to speak from 1 Peter 2:4-10.

1) Our identity. A chosen people/race, a specific OT reference (Isaiah 43) applied originally to Israel now applied to Christ's people. A royal priesthood--this derives from the Exodus. Kingdom and priests or royal priests. The Levitical priesthood was not voluntary, rather by appointment. But in one way all the people of God are considered as priests, mediators between God and men. In the NT Paul speaks of discharging his priestly role through evangelism. Christians mediate through intercessory prayer. Nation here means ethnicity (the idea of nation-state is of 18th century origin). We are a holy nation. The distinction between communicable and incommunicable attributes. Holiness is in a unique category; it has concentric rings of meaning. At its core holy is almost an adjective for God as God. The highest order of angels cover their faces as they extol his holiness. What does this mean for a people commanded to be holy? Set aside by God for God, therefore holy but also behaviorally/functionally. God's special possession. God has ownership of all nations but his people are his in a special sense. Nothing intrinsic in ourselves, but by God's sovereign choice according to his purposes.

2) Our purpose. That we may declare his praises, his excellences. Consider the sheer God-centeredness of this concept. Is God egocentric? Selfish? It is a supreme act of love for us that he requires this, for it is for our own good. God has no needs, he is entire in himself. There is also a sense of sheer privilege as we are called out of darkness and into his marvelous light.

3) Our foundation. Once not a people but now a people (Hosea 1 and 2). God's gracious restoration of his people; in the case of Romans 9 and 1 Peter 2 this is extended to Gentiles because Jews and Gentiles are in the same boat (Romans 1:18-3:20). This identity, purpose, and foundation erases all other distinctions.

Dr. Carson made repeated references back to the opening verses of the epistle throughout the sermon.

If anyone were inclined to obtain an audio copy of just one of the 2009 presentations this is probably the one for persons already familiar with Dr. Sproul's ideas; for newbies to Ligonier material I'd go with his Saturday message, the notes for which are yet forthcoming.

Cosmic Treason: Sin and the Holiness of God

Thabiti Anyabwile took the pulpit next to speak on the subject of sin, with Numbers 25:1-18 as his text.

1) Verses 1-6: The horrible context. A proscription against idolatry lies at the heart of God's covenant with Israel. Despite God's protection of Israel from plotting by the king of Moab, the people begin to play the harlot with the daughters of Moab. Spiritual adultery underlies the physical sin. They repay the faithfulness of God by bowing down to false foreign gods. Watch out for the seductive smiles of the world, for they are a greater danger than the world's disapproval and hate. God directs a drastic example be made of the leaders of the people.

--Sin is moral in nature, a transgression of what is right.
--Sin is personal, against God himself. An apostasy, a falling away, a turning.
--Sin is rebellion against God's rightful rule.
--Sin is dangerous, self-destruction. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

2) Verses 6-9: While the people are gathered grappling with the judgment of God, an Israelite man blatently brings a Midianite woman through in full sight of Moses and the people--really, in the sight of God himself. This is brazen sin, contemptuous of God. Phinehas deals decisively with this affront and thereby stops the plague that had killed many thousands. Do we side with the sinner in his sin or with God, seeking vindication for his name? Sin should cause brokenness and weeping.

3) Verses 10-13: Honorable commendation. God praises Phinehas and makes a special covenant with him and his descendants. Phinehas exhibits godly characteristics. God must also be commended and honored for his grace in ending the plague and for exalting his name. Because sin is treason it requires punishment, correction. That we may participate in his holiness. Sin requires atonement. God's wrath must be turned away. There must be reconciliation. Phinehas as priest points to Christ. Notice the promise of a perpetual priesthood.

4) Verses 14-18: See how the sinner and Midianite woman are remembered by name. God promises a judgment against Midian. God will be God over all, as is right.

The Second Q&A Session, Part Two

Without further ado...

7) Define the difference between a Calvinist and an Arminian. Do we believe that regeneration precedes faith or that faith precedes regeneration? Is salvation merely possible or has it been accomplished? The island of righteousness idea. Dr. Begg posits that a lot of "Arminian" Christians are just poorly taught or that's the default position. There ensued some discussion of the experiential aspects of salvation.

8) The distinction between preaching and teaching. The latter is the conveying and clarifying of truth; the former requires teaching with added aspects of persuasion, motivation, passion/intensity, exhortation, and application.

9) The origins of the idea of prevenient grace. In the true sense, it's found in Genesis 3. If by this is meant the RCC sense, it comes out of the notion that something is granted in baptism, coming before justification. An infusion of righteousness. But in order to be effective this righteousness requires assent and cooperation. The Arminian view is similar--grace comes not from baptism but from the preaching of the gospel and requires assent and cooperation.

The Second Q&A Session, Part One

The second hour of question-answering was conducted by Drs. Begg, Ferguson, Lawson, and Sproul fils; Sproul pere was supposed to be the moderator, but it will come as no surprise that he made one or two contributions.

1) What was Calvin's position on the classical arguments for God's existence, or did he think belief in God is basic [meaning foundational or axiomatic]? The implanted knowledge of God, related to his view of men as created in the image of God. It is impossible for man to escape divine revelation, so the knowledge of God is a given. Calvin taught an immediate revelation. Self awareness, per Augustine, brings an awareness of one's contingency and dependence. There is a distinction between proof and persuasion.

2) What does being "reformed" mean? The five solas, especially sola Scriptura, at the heart of which is the saving gospel.

3) How does Calvin's concept of piety differ from John Wesley's sanctification? Sanctification and glorification are tightly linked. Wesley was profoundly influenced by pietism, so have to beware of the excesses of that movement. Calvin placed emphasis on mortification and vivification. Wesley was more inward-focused.

4) Monergism vs. synergism. Sanctification is properly understood as synergistic but this is solely because we are new creations. Our salvation is predicated wholely on Christ and his righteousness. Our works count nothing for our justification but we will be rewarded because of our works. God crowning his own gifts (Augustine).

5) How to deal with a passive congregation with respect to expositional preaching. Recall that the Lord's preaching was not readily received. Reliance on the Spirit. Be faithful and accurate in your presentation of the word and then get out of the way.

6) Did Jesus have the ability to sin? There was no external binding on him to prevent sin, but he could no more sin than the Father can lie. Jesus has no desire to sin. His will is solely to do the will of his Father.

The Breath of the Almighty: The Holy Spirit

Dr. Alistair Begg, he of Parkside Church in Cleveland and the radio ministry Truth for Life, spoke on the subject of the Holy Spirit. His text was John 16:5-14. This is an inexhaustible subject. It is therefore important to stay grounded within Scripture and stay bound by its limits, for the Holy Spirit has been a subject of great speculation. Note the context of the passage. Jesus explains why it is that he must leave just at the time the disciples need him most.

1) The necessity of Jesus' departure. The Lord emphasizes that he is going back to the Father and this is to the disciples' advantage. If he doesn't go, the Helper/Counselor won't come to them. Think about the cost of all this--everything that will take place between this event and his ascension. In the entire drama of redemption the Spirit is the applicator of all the Father has decreed and the Son accomplished. Who is the one sent as a Helper? Verse 13 says "the Spirit of truth." He is a unique person, not a power or influence, and definitely not an "it." He is one with the Father and the Son, coequal and coeternal. He is sent by both Father and Son. He is never in isolation from the person and work of Christ or the will of the Father. The Spirit is the agent of creation (see Genesis 1) and the author of the new birth (John 3). He is the author of the Scriptures (2 Timothy 3).

2) Another of the same kind of helper who comes alongside. He will be with and in the disciples and will remain forever.

3) When the Spirit comes, he will convict the world. He confronts the sin, he proves the world guilty. The Spirit will convict individuals. All this is to the advantage of the disciples and to all of us who have come along behind them. In verse 12 and following the Spirit comes and will guide them into all truth. He inspired the apostles to write down their witness and guided them in doing so. The activity of the Spirit is also to glorify Jesus. He takes what is Christ's and declares it to Christ's people and through Christ's people. He ever reminds us of our sonship (Romans 8) and works to transform us into the image of Christ, such that when Christ appears we will be like him.

The Holy One of God: The Holiness of Jesus

Dr. Lawson returned to the pulpit, taking Mark 1:21-28 as his text. There is no more dangerous place to be than where truth confronts false or dead religin. Satan is aroused, demons awakened, hell mobilized. There is peace in the house of death and they'd like to keep it that way. But as soon as light shines into the kingdom of darkness trouble begins. The truth is a great threat to Satan. This is where Jesus finds himself in this passage. The synagogue at Capernaum had rules but no relationship with God. The religious crowds were those who most opposed Christ. False, dead relgion was one of his greatest enemies (still is). Jesus here advances directly into one of Satan's strongholds. It was a takeover. Capernaum would become the headquarters of his Galilean ministry. He began to teach in this synagogue with all his considerable talents and authority. His hearers were amazed--the light shines into their darkness and it overwhelms. At this point a man appeared in the synagogue who had an unclean spirit--a demon. "What is there to you and us?" is the literal rendering of what he says. In other words, what do we have in common? Nothing, of course. The demon recognizes how alien Jesus is to him. Actually, there were a plurality of demons. The unclean spirit discloses the identity of Jesus as "the Holy One of God." It recognized Jesus' absolute holiness, a high confession for such unholy lips (James 2:19). Holy in all his ways and being. The phrase is a title for God himself, seen in Isaiah (see also John 6:69). A title of supremacy. God has come down to be among men. Jesus rebuked the demon, perhaps for interrupting his teaching the crowd, and cast it out. His observers were doubly amazed by all this: A new teaching, an authority they'd never heard, and the obedience of demons.

Hallowed Be Thy Name: The Holiness of the Father

Dr. Sinclair Ferguson spoke next, using several verses from John 17 as his text. Verse 11 of this chapter contains the only reference in all of Scripture to "holy Father." This prayer offers a unique window into the heart and mind of Christ, on the eve of his passion and death. It is a most sacred moment. We should approach it with awe and reverence. Recall the opening phrases of the Lord's Prayer--we are invited to use the same language. Jesus here widens the disciples' understanding of the Trinity.

What does it mean for the Lord of glory to say "holy Father?" As the Logos, God the Son ever addresses the Father as holy. "Holy" within the blessed existence of the Trinity can mean purity and intensity but not separation. An intensity of love and fellowship. In his prayer, Jesus voices longing not just to be reinstated to this intensity of love but to have his disciples behold it and share in it. Analogy with human relationships of intimacy. Being is fundamental to doing. John 5:19-20--the Son does nothing of his own accord but only what he sees the Father doing. John 10--Jesus speaks of giving his life for the sheep and says the Father loves him because of his coming death and resurrection. We have been brought into this family. If when we pray we say "our holy Father," then the church is the holy family. Since he is the holy Father he gives his children the Holy Spirit as a surety and seal of identification. He has set his heart on making all of his children like his holy Son and will stop at nothing to accomplish this. Recall how much it cost Jesus to express what he did in John 17.

I AM the LORD, There Is No Other

Dr. Sproul officially opened the main part of the national conference by addressing the conference theme, the holiness of God. He stated that he detects a strand running through the great theologians and preachers, who all seem intoxicated with the majesty and holiness of God. His text was Isaiah 45:1-8, which he acknowledged is a "strange" text because it is addressed to Cyrus, who was not yet alive at the time of the prophecy. Israel was in bondage in Babylon. Cyrus was the future king of the Medo-Persian empire that would later defeat Babylon and liberate Israel. In this passage God calls Cyrus his "anointed," which of course is also rendered messiah. God says he will go before Cyrus and empower his armies to lay waste the present powers. Why? That Cyrus may know it is God, the Lord of Israel. All this is done not for Cyrus' sake but for the sake of Israel. Per Calvin, when God closes his holy mouth we should desist from speculation, but Sproul does so anyway with respect to Cyrus' thought when he heard this passage. At first, perhaps he thinks God is proposing a summit meeting, one potentate to another, but God goes on to declare his absoluteness and uniqueness. "Holy" has two common references: God's otherness, the sense in which he is different from his creation; and his purity, which is the sense in which we can obey the command to be holy (the first is incommunicable, as we can't be other than creatures). In the first sense it refers to his transcendent divine nature which we cannot imitate. How to grasp this? Three tools--the way of negation, the way of eminentia, and the way of affirmation. Aseity--God's self-existence. He is the only one who has the power of being in himself. All else is contingent.

[Here Dr. Sproul made his oft-repeated remarks on nothing.]

Aquinas' arguments for God's existence. One is that God possesses necessary being, which is what makes him holy. God is the kind of being who cannot possibly not be. God's being is also logically necessary. We have to take leave of our senses to assume God does not exist, or else from where did everything come?

[Here he told his story about the famous cosmologist and "gradual" spontaneous generation.]

Returning to the Isaiah passage: What does this God do? He creates all that is and provides blessing and curse/judgment.

The First Q&A Session, Part Two

Continuing with the questions...

5) What was Calvin's relation with Martin Luther and Lutherans? In a word, distant. Luther and Calvin probably never met. Calvin acknowledged an enormous debt to Luther but thought there were troubling elements in Luther's theology. Out of respect he took great care to correct without scolding. He had a different relationship with Philip Melancthon but was unhappy that (in his opinion) Melancthon pussyfooted and watered down Luther's stronger predestinarian views. He considered Luther a kind-of spiritual father and had hoped early on that Melancthon would prove a like-minded colleague. There was a bit of a falling-out when Calvin realized that Melancthon would not work for a thorough reformation. He had hoped for greater unity in the various reform movements but was disappointed.

6) What aspects of Calvin's thought should we disregard? The answer on this one was a little fuzzy. The panel began with a side comment that there were two Baptists on the dias, evidently referring to the disagreement over sacramentology. Someone also observed that Calvinism is broader than the famous five points.

7) What was central to Calvin's theology? The ideas represented by the five points (although anacronistic when applied to Calvin) reflect an underlying unity. The influence of the book of Romans. Solid trinitarianism. God himself is the gospel. A very high Christology.

8) Are we guilty of over-revering Calvin? We have to be careful not to be too vigorous in defending the five points, which are often the focus of attacks, thinking the whole of Calvin's teaching is at stake. We all have spiritual geneologies as well as physical geneologies. It is more important that someone have a high view of God, of Christ, and of the Bible than that he self-identifies as a Calvinist. We've come up with labels as shorthand, based on the previous experiences of the church.

9) What are some significant gleanings from Calvin's life and thought? The model of a gospel minister in a local congregation. A model preacher. A teacher who understood the necessity of the people of God learning. The fundamental problem man has is idolatry. Calvin's exposition of the atonement.