But I want to begin this evening by really explaining to some extent why this topic and why now. Perhaps you know this about me, perhaps you don't, but I would be given generally to melancholy. That would be the stronger side of me, more melancholy than levity. And some might say that it's because of that that I've taken up a subject that's so somber, so serious as this this evening. I trust that no one in this room would think that, but I do wanna say just for the record that that's not at all the reason why. Really the subject is somber this evening, but the reason why I want us to look at it together as a congregation, especially even after a communion season and after having such a focus on evangelical outreach is because this subject is so crucial to the reformation and the reviving of a people. In other words, it's not negative, the subject though somber, it is fundamentally positive. As you work your way through the scriptures, you'll notice that in Old and New Testament alike, when there is a general movement of God's spirit among the people, the themes that we take up this evening are front and center. In fact, I can go a step further and say that there is no general movement of the spirit of God among the people according to the scripture pattern, but one that must of necessity have some reference, some connection to the subject that we take up tonight. And so this is not about optimism or pessimism. This is not even about discouragement or encouragement. This is fundamentally an opportunity for us to look at what is crucial to a genuine work of reformation. But also I want to say this, that friend, you and I, we need to be clear in how we think about the generation in which you and I live. We need to be as Christians clear about the kind of age in which we subsist, whether it's an age of reformation or defection. whether it's an age of spiritual and other blessings, or an age where there is, as it were, the thunderclouds of judgment upon the horizon. We need to know that. And we won't know that really without taking some time as a congregation to think about these themes tonight. And so fundamentally, it's not because I'm melancholic that we're taking up this subject. This is really for our edification. to show us what true reformation must include, and also to give us a clearer sense of where we are in our own generation and stations. Now, because of that, I want to say just a few things. I want to say, first of all, what we're really talking about. So this evening, what we're going to take up is really, first of all, the subject of corporate moral responsibility or identity. The second thing that's necessary to the subject as well is the characteristics of national sin. What constitutes a national sin? And connected with that, what rules from the word of God do we have to discern when a nation is under judgment? And then fourthly, and finally, and really the most obvious, I'm sure, is that you and I have an obligation to answer these questions because these questions influence our obligations in the present. how you and I think about corporate guilt, how we think about national judgment, all of those things will influence how we see our responsibility as Christians in our generation. Now, you could distill those four principles down just to two. Tonight, we're really talking about two elements. One is the interpretation of providence, and the other is really corporate moral identity and ethics. Now, That's our scope. Allow me just to tell you what we're not going to talk about this evening very briefly. We're not going to be talking about predictive prophecy. I'm sure you know that in our own history, the likes of John Knox, John Welsh, Alexander Payton, James Rennick, all of these men are recorded to have made predictions about the judgment of God upon the enemies of the church. I'm not going to touch that subject at all this evening. Neither am I going to touch the subject of premonitory signs of judgment. In other words, our forebears, they looked to things like earthquakes and comets and so forth and saw in them as something like a harbinger for impending judgment. I can certainly direct your attention to folks who have written on this subject, men who we trust and admire, who have written considerably on both issues. But tonight, we're not talking about either. This evening, our focus is really straightforward. And really, that's really my endeavor this evening is just to convince you how straightforward the subject matter really is. It's not complicated. Some would really obfuscate it. Some would say that this is dark and murky matter. It's not. I would really, one of my aims this evening is to really convince you of the contrary. The subject that we take up is really straightforward. But in order for us to see that, we need to go back to basics. Because so much of what we're going to talk about this evening has been lost. I can't reiterate that enough. I can't say that with enough emphasis because, friend, you and I live in an age in which we only think in terms of individuals. And we've done so from the moment we were in primary school. and we carry that with us when we contemplate even subjects like this. I want us to review what it means to have a corporate ethic, a scripturally informed and determined corporate ethic. Take just a few definitions to start. When we talk about corporations, we're talking really simply about two or more associated to act together. Very straightforward. When two or more individuals come together to act together in any capacity, we call that a corporation. Of course, corporation has behind it, etymologically, the idea of a body. They become one body in act. So then what do we mean when we talk about the corporate moral identity or personhood of that association? When we talk about corporate moral personhood, it seems daunting, but it's really straightforward. It's the idea or the doctrine that all associations or all bodies are morally responsible. And the entailment necessarily flows that then individuals, that is to the constituent members of that body, are implicated in the righteousness or in the guilt of corporate activity. I'll return to that in just a moment. But I want to define as well a third term before we press forward. And that is, what is a corporate activity? So a corporation is when two or more individuals come together to act as one body. Corporate moral personhood is the idea that that body is morally responsible before God, and that the individual or constituent members of that body share in the righteousness or guilt of those corporate activities. So what then is a corporate action? They are works that are committed either by the majority of the body, by its representatives, or by the consent of the body. A corporate action, not necessarily does it have to have all three. Just one of those elements make an act, an act of the entire corporation or body. Now, I begin with those definitions just simply to show you that this evening we are making a distinction between corporate sin and individual sin. And these definitions help in that way. And how so? Well, they help us remember that not everything done in the body is necessarily to be determined as being done by the body. Not every sin committed in the body by constituent members is of necessity, something that is to be seen as a sin belonging to the entirety of that body. These definitions help us to see that. But I want really to spend most of our time this evening, seeing these things through the scriptures. And I know if you remember back two and a half years ago, no, two years ago now, when we took up the issue of corporate moral covenanting, All of these themes were front and center in the first lecture. So allow me just very briefly to review these ideas. So first of all, I want you to see that in the scriptures, you do find God defining and describing corporations as acting as a single body. Just for example, and I'll only be able to give you examples this evening. We just don't have time to go to any great length in each text. Take, for instance, what you find in Deuteronomy 6. God says to his people, he says, thou shalt do that which is right and good in the sight of the Lord, that it may be well with thee, and that thou mayest go in and possess the good land which the Lord swear unto thy fathers. Now, I want you to notice something. Notice that he's speaking here in the singular. They are a body that is an aggregate of individuals, but the Lord describes them here and commands them here to act as one. And in acting as one, they together, that is the body, they will encounter the blessing of inheriting the land. You see how that fits with the definition of corporation that we've just started with. The Lord here describes them as a single body. and so capable of acting righteously in a civic sense, and so coming under divine blessing together. Take another example. Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord. Now the question is, how does a nation have God as theirs? It's only by engagement. We know that an engagement in the scripture sense is the activity by which a nation binds themselves to God. But how does a nation do that? A friend that does that, as we've seen already through covenanting, holding solemnly God to be theirs and theirs only. They will have no other gods but He. And this is a national profession in Psalm 33. But note this, the whole nation is described as being engaged to God. One body, though an aggregate of individuals, but together they have in an external sense, the God, who is the Lord as theirs. And then of course, Proverbs 14, righteousness exalteth a nation. A friend, what you see there is again, a single body, namely a nation, but capable of working righteousness. And so capable, of course, of its blessing. And why do I say all of that? I say all of that because there's a sense in which you and I live in again, in a world of individualism. The reality is you and I, we find folks today who will say that you can't even call a nation righteous or you can't call a nation Christian unless every single individual within that nation is righteous in a civic sense externally, or is actually professing faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Obviously those two things are not dichotomous. But the point is, Fred, they say you cannot talk about nations as a single body. You cannot ascribe to them any kind of moral identity. in that sense. That's the doctrine of the individualist in the 21st century. I want you to notice something, the scripture shows us, actually gives us explicitly an example, where you have a wicked person existing in the land that is marked by uprightness. The land remains upright, according to the declaration of God. Even though there's an individual in the midst, I'm speaking here of Isaiah in the 26th chapter. "'Let favor be showed to the wicked,' says the prophet, "'yet will he not learn righteousness. "'In the land of uprightness will he deal unjustly.'" There you have a clear evidence that the land can still be called a land of uprightness, even if there is a wicked person in the midst. We're gonna come back to the significance of that in a moment, but what I mean here, friend, for you and I to really grasp, is that the scriptures hold forth in one voice, that nations, we'll find later churches, even families, are described in the scriptures as having a moral corporate responsibility and agency. They can act as one. And so, as we'll see in just a moment, they can come under guilt as one as well. Just to press this further and very briefly, I want you to notice, friend of the scriptures, hold out that that not only do these nations act and function as one, not only do these bodies really possess moral agency themselves as a body, but that moral agency and responsibility has a real impact upon individuals, and one that transcends time. I want you to notice just for example, what you have in the book of Genesis with Joseph. Joseph took an oath of the children of Israel saying, God will surely visit you. "'And ye shall carry up my bones and hands.'" Now, who is he talking to? He's talking, of course, to the Israelites of his generation. But then in Exodus 13, we're told this, "'Moses took the bones of Joseph with him, "'for he had straightly sworn the children of Israel.'" Notwithstanding the fact that generations had passed between Joseph and Moses, Notwithstanding the fact that those who were there at Joseph's bedside had now also passed away, and that a whole new generation was on the scene that had never seen Joseph's face. Nevertheless, these individuals were so bound as a corporate body that they had an obligation to uphold the oath which had been sworn. This is powerfully given to us in the book of Deuteronomy. The Lord spake unto you out of the midst of the fire. Ye heard the voice of the words, but saw no similitude. Only ye heard a voice. He declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even 10 commandments, and he wrote them upon two tables of stone, that ye might do them in the land whither ye go to possess it. I emphasize the pronouns because they're crucial. Because he recognized that Moses here is talking to a generation that was not. at Sinai. And yet, as they were part of this corporate body, they stood before God just as morally responsible, just as the same body that stood before him in the giving of the law. 40 years had elapsed. Only Moses, Joshua, and Caleb personally, individually heard these things, and yet the entire body is implicated. And so implicated that they have the same exact moral responsibility as the previous generation. All of that friend I know is review, but very crucial. The Lord God, as he speaks to us in his word, shows us time and time again, that he sees corporations as being morally responsible before him. And that individuals within that corporation or body of solemn obligation to him. Now, very briefly as well, just to go over the types of corporations the scriptures hold out, entire houses are dealt with individually. The house of Eli in 1 Samuel, the house of the Rechabites in the prophecy of Jeremiah. And then friend, as you work throughout the scriptures, you'll notice that entire churches, particular churches, are treated as acting as one. And for that, all I'll do is refer you back to Revelation chapters two and three. They are an aggregate again of individuals, but so associated to be considered one body and activity, one body and responsibility before God. He says to the church of Ephesus, I know thy works. The singularity there evidences the very truths that you and I have been contemplating. And of course, this applies not only to families, not only to churches, As we've been saying all along, this applies to nations. The pride of Moab, says Isaiah. Moab, again, a group of individuals. Moab capable singularly of pride. He goes on, Isaiah says, he is very proud even of his haughtiness and his pride and his wrath, but his life shall not be so. Again, Moab, though again, comprised of so many individuals, still is one in activity before God. And of course, Babylon, says Jeremiah, hath caused the slain of Israel to fall. Were the infants in Babylon there at the destruction of Jerusalem? The wives, the mothers of soldiers, were they there? No, of course not. But yet it was such a corporate act that Babylon as a whole is regarded to have committed it. And we could go on and on and on. The scriptures hold forth this for us in one voice, Old and New Testaments alike. Now that brings us then to the idea of corporate guilt. So all of that is just essential to understanding that a corporation is morally responsible to God. How are you and I to understand corporate guilt? That is before God, the body being held responsible for corporate sin. Our definition for this is really straightforward. It is that sin committed by the generality, the representatives or the consent of the body incurs guilt before God. You'll notice that that's the definition given to you in your handout. And I want you to notice friend, just again, as we work through the scriptures, how often we encounter this idea. Let me just give you a few examples. First of all, for sins committed by the generality, that is by the majority of the people, you have witness in Jeremiah. He says there in Jeremiah five, they were as fed horses in the morning, speaking of Judah. everyone nade after his neighbor's wife. No man repented him of his wickedness saying, what have I done? Everyone is turned to his course as the horse rusheth into battle. We'll see that in Jeremiah five and in Jeremiah eight, this is cited as a reason for national judgment. Not judgment upon the men who are here described only, but because of the generality that is the near universality of this transgression. the judgment upon the whole nation is to come. And of course, the refrain in the book of Judges, every man did that which was right in his own eyes, speaks to us of the guilt of Israel because of the generality of their own willfulness and the generality of their defection. But that's not the only way in which corporate guilt is incurred. I want you to notice that it's incurred through representatives. Hosea 9, I will love them no more, all their princes are revolters. Ephraim is smitten, their root is dried up, they shall bear no fruit. Now note this, while not being the only cause of Israel's overthrow, note one cause that is sufficient for her judgment. He says, I will love them no more and hear the reason all their princes are revolters. Again, not the only cause, but a real cause for national judgment. If you were to turn to 2 Samuel 24 and following, you'll notice that David himself acknowledges that because of his sin as a representative of the people, generally the nation comes under divine judgment. He says there, lo, I have sinned and I have done wickedly, but these sheep, that is the citizens of Israel, what have they done? By thine hand, I pray thee be against me and against my father's house. Again, as you read through 2 Samuel, you'll find as well that there was a famine in the days of David, three years, year after year, and David inquired of the Lord and the Lord answered, it is for Saul. The famine was for Saul and for his bloody house because he slew the Gibeonites. Again, to what degree were these ones personally or individually implicated in the slaying of the Gibeonites or in the numbering of the people? And the answer is that very, very few had a hand in those things. But yet the entire nation, as they were considered under their representatives, in this case, Saul and David, They were under national judgment, which presupposes corporate guilt. But then thirdly, friend, you also find that even the consent of the people generally, that too incurs corporate guilt. I think perhaps the best illustration that we have here is from the book of Joshua. In Joshua 7, you find, of course, the ordeal of Achan. The children of Israel, says the inspired historian, "'The children of Israel have committed a trespass "'in the accursed thing. "'For Achan, the son of Carmi, the son of Zabdi, "'the son of Zerah of the tribe of Judah, "'took of the accursed thing, "'and the anger of the Lord was kindled "'against the children of Israel.'" I want you to notice that, first of all. He says here that it was Achan who did it, that the entirety of the children of Israel had done the accursed thing. As you continue to read through Joshua 7, you find these words as well. Israel hath sinned, and they have also transgressed my covenant, which I commanded them, for they have taken, they have taken of the accursed thing, and have also stolen and assembled also, and they have put it even among their own stuff. Again, one man's sin imputed to the generality of the people, to the entirety of the corporate body. Why is that? Really, the most orthodox of our commentators in the past really give a very straightforward answer. Their guilt was because they consented. Perhaps these ones didn't even know so much about Aitken's transgression. As Matthew Poole, I think quite helpfully puts it, Neither did they do careful diligence to make sure that the law of God was kept. And that lack of diligence, that lack of care and so that tacit consent leads Achan's sin to be attributed to all of Israel. You see this throughout the scriptures as well, the rulers, consenting with the sin of the people. The company of priests murder in the way by consent, Hosea 6, 9. In other words, the priests themselves are guilty simply because they consent with the transgression, the general transgression of the people. Consent is sufficient to incur guilt. But then on the other hand, You have the people consenting to the sins of the rulers and this also bringing national judgment. The prophets prophesy falsely and the priests bear rule by their means and my people love to have it so. And then says the Lord, he says, shall I not visit for these things? Say if the Lord shall not my soul be avenged on such a nation as this, note this, the consent of the people sufficient here. for the entire nation to be brought under judgment. Now, that's corporate guilt. What then of corporate repentance? Our definition, our working definition this evening is that this repentance is when the body ceases, confesses, and is humbled for corporate sin. Now, I want you to notice, friend, that this is of necessity a corporate act. Whatever made sin a corporate act of necessity, so also must corporate repentance take on the same characteristics. And so it must be done by the generality or the representatives of the people. Either is sufficient in this case. But of course the scriptures hold forth that ideally it is both. It is necessary friend for the wellbeing of the nation that both, The people and their leaders are engaged in corporate repentance. You see examples in the scriptures, and we don't have time to really exhaustively look at these themes, but just to show you two examples. One that's led by the leaders of God's people, you find commanded in Joel 2, sanctify a fast, God tells his people, call a solemn assembly, gather the people, sanctify the congregation, assemble the elders, "'Let the priests, the ministers of the Lord, "'weep between the porch and the altar, "'and let them say, spare thy people, O Lord, "'and give not thine heritage to reproach.'" Here it's actually commanded that the people of God, when they would repent, they should be stirring up their leaders, both in church and in state, by the way, to engage and to lead in this work. I also want you to notice that all of this is taking place in the context of corporate worship. That'll be significant to us at the end of our time together. And so in the scriptures, you have examples of this very thing. It's not just precept, we have examples in Joshua, in Hezekiah, in Josiah, of course in Ezra, and so on and so forth. We see the leaders of God's people leading, leaders of nations, leading their subjects in repentance. You also find instances in the other way as well. Take just one example from 1 Samuel 7. All the house of Israel lamented after the Lord. They gathered together to mitzvah and drew water and poured it out before the Lord and fasted on that day and said there, we have sinned against the Lord. And you notice friend in 1 Samuel 7, it's the people who by God's grace have been stirred and so they go to Samuel. Striking, isn't it? But the idea is the same. We, they say, have sinned against the Lord. There is a sense friend of corporate guilt that's unmistakable there. And so they urge Samuel, of course, to intercede. Then I want you to notice this as well. Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write, repent. Striking there, as you read, those two chapters in the book of Revelation, you notice that each epistle, each letter to these seven churches is addressed to the spirit or to the angel of that church. Again, most of the judicious commentators see that the angel there is really the minister. And so the idea is that there's a solemn command there, even in the New Testament. that the ministers of the gospel, those who rule in the church would lead the church in repentance. We'll come back to that in just a moment. But I want to raise something of a case study with you this evening. It would perhaps be helpful if you took up your copies of God's word and turned to 2 Samuel just for a moment. 2 Samuel. And the case study that I want us to look at this evening is, is really a question of how are you and I to engage in repentance for corporate sin when we are in a weakened state? So that's 2 Samuel, 2 Samuel 3, and starting there, the 27th verse. So the context there is the treachery of Joab, in which he slays Abner. He was general under Saul, but was coming to make league with David. Joab slays Abner again through deceit. And I want you to notice as we read from verse 27, how David responds. And we'll see how that answers the question, how should we engage in corporate repentance for corporate guilt if in a weakened state? So let's start here at verse 27. When Abner was returned to Hebron, Joab took him aside in the gate to speak with him quietly and smote him there under the fifth rib. And he died for the blood of Asahel, his brother. And afterward, when David heard it, he said, I and my kingdom are guiltless before the Lord forever from the blood of Abner, the son of Ner. let it rest upon the head of Joab, and on all his father's house, and let there not fail from the house of Joab one that hath an issue, or that is leper, or that leaneth on a staff, or that falleth on the sword, or that lacketh bread. So Joab and Abishai, his brothers, slew Abner, because he had slain their brother Asahel at Gibeon in the battle. And David said to Joab, and to all the people that were with him, "'Rend your clothes and gird you with sackcloth "'and mourn before Abner, "'and King David himself follow the bier.'" And they buried Abner in Hebron, and the king lifted up his voice and wept at the grave of Abner, and all the people wept. And the king lamented over Abner and said, "'Died Abner as a fool dieth. "'Thy hands were not bound, nor thy feet put into feathers. "'As a man falleth before the wicked men, so fellest thou. And all the people wept again over him. When all the people came to cause David to eat meat while it was yet day, David swear saying, so do God to me and more also if I taste bread or else or ought else till the sun be down. And all the people took notice of it and it pleased them as whatsoever the king did pleased all the people. And all the people and all Israel understood that day that it was not to the king to slay Abner, the son of Ner. And the king said unto his servants, Know ye not that there is a prince and a great man fallen this day in Israel? And I am this day weak, though anointed king. And these men, the sons of Zuriah, be too hard for me. The Lord shall reward the doer of evil according to his wickedness. I read all of that because I want you to notice how methodical David's response to the death of Abner was. Every constituent element is really striking. Just look back with me if you would. You have here Joab, who is a commander under David. Now, this is another topic for another time. According to the scriptures, and really even according to pagan philosophy as well, the soldier functions in a just war as something like a magistrate. He quite literally bears the sword to exact justice. And so here you have Joab, who's not only a soldier, but he's a commander of soldiers, and he is something like a magistrate, something of a ruler into whose hand the security and the trust of the people is found. And Abner, thus a representative of God's people, commits sin. Now, if we go back to the issue of Achan, when one man commits sin, Achan again being a soldier as well, and the people consent either tacitly or expressly to that sin, then that single transgression becomes corporate. It ceases to be a particular act, it becomes a corporate act. So in this case, how does one evade incurring corporate guilt for the sin of Joab, one who was, by all rights and purposes, something of a representative of the people? David's response tells us exactly how. I want you to notice in verses 28 and 29, David abjures any personal, not only any personal hand, but any kind of approbation for Joab's activity. publicly David says, and pointedly, Joab has done this sinfully. It is at once, of course, a statement of David's innocence. And on the other hand, of course, it is also rebuked Joab. He excoriates Joab's sin for what it was. But then I also want you to notice verses 31 to 34. He also leads the people to mourn Abner. Now, in the morning of Abner, I want you to notice, friend, that necessarily included a repudiation of Joab's treachery and murder. And so what do we find here? We find here, first of all, David very pointedly says publicly, the sin was evil. It was not something that I had commanded as king, and it is to be utterly abhorred. And then further, he orders the people to engage, nothing less than fasting and in humiliation. This way, friend, you'd notice that the guilt, as David himself says, falls only on Joab and not on the corporate body. It's a wonderful pattern, friend, and we certainly should hold this before us. This is one of the reasons why we are a testimony bearing church. Reformed Presbyterian Church, her testimony historically had three components to it. There was a positive component, a negative component, and a component that was mixed, both positive and negative. The first was the mixed component, that was historical, in which the church was supposed to set forward very clearly that the nation had engaged in defection, that was the negative element. So historically, she traces the steps of defection in the nation and in the church. And then positively, she sets forward why she, that is the testimony bearing body, has remained faithful through those years. That's the first part. The second part is negative. The second part is whenever she abjures herself of the defection. That is, she names the defection that has been engaged, and she repudiates it herself. And then the third element was the positive or dogmatic in which he sets forward very pointedly, for continuing testimony in a doctrinal sense. The reason why our forebears did that was the self-same reason we have in our text. The only way for you and I to come out from under corporate guilt, after sins have been committed, either by the generality of the people, by its representatives, or even by the consent of the people, is to bear testimony in very much the same way we find in our text. I want you to hold on to that, friend, before we close. Here you have an example of testimony bearing, very, very pointedly set before us. But all of that, friend, really leads us to our main subject this evening. And I know you're probably thinking it's taken a long time for us to get here, but all of that groundwork that we've laid is really just preparing us for this moment. What is national judgment? Our definition, our working definition this evening is that when the generality or representatives of a nation are chastised for sin. And by sin, of course, we mean their corporate sin. I wanna deal with an objection from that you and I will encounter today. And the objection is really straightforward. It is that God just does not do that today. There are many people who profess faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, who will say that they do not believe that God actually judges nations today. And there are many ways in which they would make that argument. I'll just really put down what you could say is the most basic argument to say that God does not do this. The idea is, well, whatever in the Old Testament is not replicated in the New Testament, that is for the Old Testament alone. we do not see nations under judgment in the New Testament. Ergo, national judgment occurred in the Old Testament dispensation alone, right? It's very, very basic. The idea is if we don't see it in the New Testament, well, then it's not something that continues to today. I want to answer that perhaps in greater length than I need to this evening, but I do feel it's quite important for us to know why that particular line of thought is wrong. First of all, I want you to notice that the major and the minor premises are both false. The major premise that is the basic idea behind all of this is that whatever is not replicated in the New Testament is discontinued or abrogated from the old. Friend, I want you to notice just how strikingly baseless that is. The Old Testament, of course, is the Word of God. It remains that. And friend, I want you to notice that then our posture toward the Old Testament ought to be of an entirely different stripe. Rather than saying, well, whatever is not replicated in the New Testament is discontinued, we ought to say, whatever is not specifically abrogated or expressly or by inference discontinued from the New Testament, that that continues even to the present time. We ought to say whatever is not abrogated or discontinued expressly or by inference, that that remains. Friend, the scriptures hold this in the New Testament forward to us rather directly. And we don't have time for all these texts, but just allow me to give you one. 1 Corinthians 10. There the apostle says to the Corinthians, he says, but with many of them, God was not well pleased. Speaking of the generation of the wilderness, for they were overthrown in the wilderness. A text of judgment, an episode of divine wrath, only for the Old Testament dispensation. No, says the apostle, now these things were our examples to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted. The apostle knows nothing of that doctrine. that would say that these things have been discontinued. In fact, he says you ought to read your Old Testament in such a way as to see a warning for the present in the destruction of those who lusted in the wilderness. So the major premise is false. The minor premise is false as well. namely that we don't see nations under judgment in the New Testament. That's patently untrue. If you look at Judah, Judea was brought under judgment as a nation. Says the Lord, Behold, your house is left unto you desolate, for I say unto you, ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord. Then in Luke's Gospel he says this, he says, They shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee, and they shall not leave thee in thee one stone upon another. And note this, the reason, because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation. There you have a nation very pointedly under judgment, and that judgment doesn't come, of course, to pass until AD 70. But it's after the first advent of the Lord Jesus Christ. Not only do we find this true of Judea, we find this also of other nations. And regardless of your hermeneutic of the book of Revelation, Friend, you notice that what I'm about to read must take place after the first advent of Christ, where we're told Babylon, that great city, was divided into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell. And great Babylon came in remembrance before God to give unto her the cup of the wine of the fierceness of his wrath. It's patently untrue that the scriptures in the New Testaments do not hold forth national judgment. They certainly do. And friend, we can say this even more positively. If you look at judgment in the Old Testament, national judgment in the Old Testament, the Lord presents that to us not as something that was specific to Israel alone. He presents it to us three times in the prophecy of Jeremiah as a general rule. I'm speaking of the words we've already read, where the Lord says, shall I not visit for these things, saith the Lord, and shall not my soul be avenged on such a nation as this? That general language, such a nation as this, is utterly inappropriate if the Lord is speaking about something that was peculiar to Israel and to Judah. Nevertheless, the text here says, as a general rule, says the Lord. I will be avenged on a nation that engages in such wickedness. Not to Israel or Judah alone. And so friend, you see that in the Old Testament, don't you? The Canaanites are specifically overthrown for their abominations. You find in Isaiah chapters 13 to 24, nations one after another taking of the cup of the Lord's wrath as nations. But I can even give you instances in the New Testament. where God does deal as we would expect him to deal if these kinds of things were to continue. We see rulers, kings, judged by God in the New Testament. The angel of the Lord smote Herod because he gave not God the glory and he was eaten of worms and gave up the ghost. There is a king slain. You have churches dealt with as churches, Revelation chapters two and three. But even Corinth, friend, you find there that still the rod of chastisement falls upon them. For this cause, says the apostle, namely their sacrilege, for this cause, many are weak and sickly among you and many sleep. For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord. that we should not be condemned with the world. But even more expressly, friend, I want you to notice that again, the scriptures hold out that the wrath of God still comes upon people, even today and even in time, of obviously Romans 1. The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who hold the truth and unrighteousness. For this cause, God gave them up unto vile affections. We will obviously come back to that text at the end of our time, but note that it is a present and an active wrath that the apostle there is describing in this period, in the dispensation of the covenant of grace following the advent of Christ. But I can be even more specific. There the apostle writes in 1 Thessalonians, We ourselves glory in you in the churches of God for your patience and faith and all your persecutions and tribulations that you endure, which is a manifest token of the righteous judgment of God, that ye may be counted worthy of the kingdom of God for which he also suffer, seeing as a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you. Who were the persecutors of the church? Those friend who were in Thessalonica were persecuted, of course, mostly at this time by the Jews, but not wholly without the Gentiles as well. And note what the apostle says. He says, you have now a present proof or evidence as the word token means there of God's wrath. It's a present one. And then he says this, not only do you have an evidence of it, But that evidence has behind it an active affliction. We don't know the manner of their troubling, but we know that presently they were recompensed with tribulation. It's not necessary for us to know the kind of affliction they faced. The scriptures hold out that God was presently, temporally, judging the church's enemies. And he says that it was a manifest token of the righteous judgment of God. Friend, I don't know why in our generation we have lost the sense that God does not deal with nations and with churches in this way. It's patently false. But friend, it's also deadly. This idea that God is somehow aloof, and that he will not visit corporate guilt with judgment. Friend, it's a dangerous and it's an atheistical idea. The scriptures hold this forth for us in so many ways. We have an obligation to hear the rod and who hath appointed it. That's what Micah tells us in the sixth chapter of his prophecy. Note what he says there, to hear the rod. That's an injunction, folks, but that's an injunction that presupposes that you and I are observing divine judgment, that you and I are observing the rod. If you go back to Amos, what we read at the beginning, Amos 4, you notice that the prophet continues again and again to excoriate Israel because she has not seen divine judgment. I want you to notice he doesn't go to Israel and say, I recognize you couldn't interpret this providence because you didn't have an inspired prophet in your midst. So now I'm here to tell you that all of these afflictions which you've encountered is the judgment of God. That's not Amos' tact at all. Rather, he adds it to their guilt that they didn't see this themselves and so repent. Folks, all of this presupposes that you and I expect that God does still work in this way, that God does visit for transgression temporally, and as our focus is principally on the nation this evening, nationally. That's why our larger catechism adds from the reality that our sins are aggravated individually and corporately. when we are insensible of God's judgments. The divines are simply distilling all that you and I have been discussing this evening. But all that presupposes that you and I are reading or interpreting providence. And as we draw to a close this evening, we need to address generally what we mean when we talk about reading or interpreting providence. So I've given you four basic rules. They're neither profound nor novel, but four rules that are really tied to our subject matter. The first rule is that scripture is our only normative key to providence. To illustrate this by way of example, when Oliver Cromwell invaded Scotland in 1650, he wrote to the Kirk and he said, look, I'm paraphrasing, of course. I don't think he sounded like an American, but he said essentially this, that, look, we have defeated you on the battlefield, not once, but time and time again. And so since it's God who has prospered us, obviously our cause is his cause. Our cause is good because we are prospering. That was Oliver Cromwell's way of reading providence. James Guthrie, principally then the writer for the Church Commission, he responded and he says, our rule to determine what is right and what is the cause of God is the Bible, which is a wonderful answer. The scriptures alone, its precepts and its providences are the only normative guide for understanding and interpreting providence. We ought to see providence through the lens of scripture. And so that leads us to the second rule. Necessarily then, when the scripture joins threatenings to sins or blessings to duties, such should be expected upon those conditions. And when that is realized in providence, Those moments are to be regarded as the fulfillment of scripture. I know that that sentence is poorly written, but there are two basic examples I can give to you. The scriptures say, honor thy father and mother that it may be well with thee and that thou mayest prosper. If you have a man or a woman who dutifully keeps the fifth commandment, and they live well and prosperously, You and I should not at all think that that happened by chance. Our forebears were so much better at this than I think we are, but they would tell us you ought to see the scriptures fulfilled there. That's how you and I should interpret the providence. Or take it the other way. The Lord says, if they break my statutes as people and keep not my commandments, then will I visit their transgression with a rod and their iniquity with strife. And so friend, after a course of defection, after a period of sin and impenitence, when you find yourself afflicted after such a time, what would the scriptures have you make of that providence? According to this text, you and I are supposed to see it as a fulfillment of the promise, that defection will be that which will be followed by stripes, by the rod. Now those are general rules, but that brings us to the third. And the third can't be missed. And that is that God's absolute prerogative and inscrutable wisdom is to be acknowledged. So you might say to me, well, what do you do with that person who kept the fifth commandment assiduously, but died in early death or lived in poverty? Or what do you do with a person who broke the fifth commandment habitually, but lived to ripen old age? Are the scriptures broken there? And the answer is no. You find in the scriptures that the Lord, he does reserve to himself all of the prerogatives of a sovereign. Though he gives to us in the scriptures general rules by which we are to govern our lives and to interpret that around us, the apostle makes it very clear. There will be times in which the ordinary dispensation of providence is not kept. There will be times indeed whenever What God does is beyond human reckoning and capacity. Take just the judgment of the natural branches in Romans 11. After seeing them cut off, he says, oh, the depth of the riches, both of the wisdom and knowledge of God, how unsearchable are his judgments and his ways past finding out. So the idea there is that while the Lord God has given us in his word, General rules by which we interpret ordinary dispensations of providence, he reserves to himself full prerogative and absolute right. But that also means that you and I, when we read providence, we can't say that we are interpreting exhaustively any single act of providence. To go back to Romans 11, that single act, the rejection of the Jews, on the one hand to the Jews, it was divine wrath. To the Gentiles, the apostle says it came as grace. Through their fall, note what the apostle says, through their fall, salvation has come unto the Gentiles. Every providence has a deep well to it. And you and I shouldn't expect to exhaust all of the divine purposes in a single act. That brings us fourthly and finally to a rule. that especially pertains to our work this evening. Nevertheless, we must order our lives and expectations according to the ordinary dispensations of providence and not the extraordinary. What I mean there is that we should not avoid the use of lawful means, expecting the miraculous. We should not plan for the miraculous without special warrant from God. Otherwise, it is a tempting of God. You see a wonderful example of this in Daniel three, where the three men, Meshach, Shadrach and Abednego say pointedly that the Lord can deliver, but even if he doesn't, the sense being that of course, God is omnipotent, but they did not expect an extraordinary intervention because at that time they had no warrant to do so. Now, those are general rules for any providence. Let me bring to a close then our entire time by looking at two aphorisms that pertain specifically to national judgment. The first is that affliction may come upon individuals for either trial or judgment and take the word trial there in its broadest signification. You have examples of this in Job, the man born blind in John nine and so on and so forth. where men and women encountered heavy afflictions, but not on account of sin. In individual cases, the scriptures hold out the truthfulness of that. There will be times, of course, whenever the Lord God does chastise with stripes for sin. There'll be other times in which through an exercise of absolute dominion and sovereignty, God afflicts his people for trial and not for sin. But take the second aphorism. and that to our point this evening. General calamity comes upon a people for judgment. This is the point I think that we've lost. James Guthrie wrote in an unpublished tract, he said, God acts in absolute dominion with persons, not always for particular sin, but no instance can be given from scripture or church history of the Lord's dealing thus with nations. Thomas Brooks, then writing after the fire of London, personal afflictions may come upon the people of God for trial and to show the sovereignty of God, as in the case of Job, whose afflictions were not for sin. But general judgment never comes upon a people but upon the account of sin." Now, where did they get this? And both of those divines pointed to texts like what you find in Psalm 107, where the Lord says, he turneth rivers into a wilderness and the water springs into dry ground, a fruitful land and a barrenness for the wickedness of them that dwell therein. Note how the Lord inseparably joins the general calamity A fruitful land made barren, invariably connected with the wickedness of that people. You do not find such statements with regard to individuals. Not one place in the scriptures do you find such a statement related to individuals, absolutely. Because as we've said before, the scriptures hold forth, at times God afflicts for trial and not for sin. But as Guthrie said, in the scriptures, you do not find that with regard to nations. And so friend, our conclusion is this. When calamity generally befalls a nation, the same is to be regarded as divine judgment and corporate sins among its causes. This evening, we do need very briefly to look at what these tokens are. And I mean this very briefly. I appreciate that I'm well over my time. But just, if you would, as I rattle these off quickly, the first token that is perhaps the most obvious is that which is physical. So in Jeremiah 5, visitation is really the invasion and the occupation of a foreign power. You find in Haggai 1 Such physical tokens can take the form of economic failure. You have so much and bring in little. You eat, but you have not enough. You drink, but you are not filled with drink. You clothe you, but there's none warm. And he that earneth wages to put it in a bag full of holes. So those are physical and you can run through pestilence, plague, and so on and so forth. The scriptures hold these out to us in abundance and these things again are quite obvious to us. But there are also mixed tokens, that is, tokens that are both spiritual and physical. Take what you have, for instance, in Isaiah 3. The people shall be oppressed, every one by another and every one by his neighbor. The child shall behave himself proudly against the ancient and the base against the honorable. Children are their oppressors and women rule over them. Notice this. The judgment upon Israel at this point is, is both the avarice and the malice of their neighbor, as well as the affliction that that malice brings. And so there is both a spiritual and a temporal affliction joined together. When you have, as you described there, rulers that are effeminate or children, there is both a spiritual and a temporal component to that. And when you look at Romans one, you have exactly the same thing. God gave them up to vile affections whereby their bodies are defiled. The spiritual element is their souls being given over to sin, the physical being their bodies defiled as well. But I want us to meditate as we close this evening, we will not have time for part four, with what are the spiritual tokens of divine judgment. And I couldn't leave this evening without touching these themes. Because not only is this the most neglected, but these are the hardest, most severe tokens of God's wrath. The scriptures hold out that among the tokens of God's wrath is also the increase of sin. Genesis 15, we're told that the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full. The idea there being that she will not encounter annihilation until She has been left to fill, fill herself with her own abominations. In other words, there is a limit and God in his wrath has given her over to fill that limit. She will increase in iniquity until annihilation. Do you think the Lord doesn't do that in the New Testament? He certainly does. In 1 Thessalonians 2, the apostles actually list these very words from the book of Genesis. Speaking of the Jews, he says, they killed the Lord Jesus and their own prophets and have persecuted us. And they please not God in our contrary to all men, forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sin all the way, to do those things which are not convenient. Note what the apostle says, up until AD 70, the Lord has given them over to their own wickedness, just as he had the Amorites to fill up the cup of wrath. And friend that happened in the new covenant dispensation. Striking, isn't it? Then the second Thessalonians one, the apostle describes there the persecution of the church as being itself a token of God's wrath against their persecutors. And I think you and I are supposed to read that text in light of what I've just read. That they were given over to that persecuting spirit. To so high-handedly obstruct the cause of God is a spiritual judgment itself. The second spiritual token I want us to see this evening is that there will also be a diminishing of the godly in the land. The righteous perisheth, saith Isaiah, and no man layeth at the heart, and merciful men are taken away, none considering that the righteous is taken away from the evil to come. He that is the righteous shall enter into peace. They shall rest in their beds, each one walking in his uprightness. Now in that text, I want you to notice it is the righteous that are perishing, they're dying. And he does not describe here that any are taking their place. And note, friend, what he's saying. They ought to lay that to heart. It's a judgment upon the nation when the righteous perish and none replace, when the godly are diminished in the place. And thirdly, and our final token is this. When a people have pure means of grace, but are unprofitable under them, the scriptures say that that too is a token of judgment. Make the heart of this people fat, make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes, lest they see with their eyes and hear with their ears and understand with their heart and convert and be healed. The removal of the candlestick in Revelation chapters two and three, really do not look only to the removal of means. Stephen Charnock has a wonderful sermon about the idea that the candlestick, both its light and its heat go. You can have the edifice and yet not the blessing. That fourth part, where we talk about cases of conscience is really important, but I believe that I'm going to have to stop there for the evening. I want to say though, as we leave this subject, that this is a sobering, sobering subject, of course, and those texts of scripture that you and I we've raised are certainly somber, but I want to go back to how we began. All reformation and all reviving takes, according to the scripture pattern, these themes into account. That's Old and New Testament. When a people are revived and reformed, they acknowledge corporate guilt. And in many cases, they even see as well the tokens of God's wrath upon them. You see this in Acts 2, don't you? Peter preaches, you have crucified both Lord and Christ. But friend, what marks that revival in Acts 2? It's the question, men and brethren, what shall we do? They don't, friend, in that single question, it's a wonderful question, but in that single question, you have so much. They acknowledge Peter's charge. They take with it and they own it. And then they cry out that they must go to God for mercy. What must we, what must we, what shall we do? Thomas Hooker very helpfully, I think puts in there that the only reason they would ask that is because they are looking for mercy. Still seeing that mercy is held out to them. Friend, this is not a case of being melancholic, I trust. But as we've contemplated these themes, we do see the pattern for our own reformation and reviving. If we have a religious experience in this nation, but it does not acknowledge corporate guilt and national judgment, according to the scripture pattern, we ought to hold that movement quite suspect. But conversely, friend, when you and I are praying for reformation and reviving, These themes ought to be front and foremost in our thoughts. God willing, in the time to come, we will revisit that fourth section. But for this evening, we'll close there. Normally, there will be time left for questions. This evening, I certainly didn't leave any. For that, I apologize. But allow me to close in prayer. And if you do have any questions or would like to talk, certainly, I'll be here. So let's stand once more as we come to the throne of grace. Our blessed and eternal God, we praise you and we thank you for the mercies and the kindnesses that you've shown us in the Lord Jesus Christ. Father, we thank you that you have been so long suffering towards us. We thank you that though for generations, we as a people, we with our fathers have sinned. And yet Father, you've left open to us a nail in the holy place. Still Father, and only from free mercy, the word of God is still to be found in these places. And still your Spirit is pleased to move upon souls and to bring them to Christ. Father, all of this is well beyond our deserving. And so we praise you and we thank you for the free mercy that you have shown. But we come, Father, acknowledging that we indeed are so dreadfully unworthy. And not only are we unworthy as we see the sins of our representatives, as we see the generality of transgressors, but Father, we see our own share in their guilt as well. How little are we grieved now by even the greatest abominations? How desensitized are we to sin? And so Father, are we not a people who should come and bow low before you? like Ezra of old saying that we ourselves are shamed, afraid to lift our gaze heavenward for our sins and the transgressions of our people. Father, would you lead us in this work? And Lord, would you do wondrously before us by turning back the tide of rebellion, by indeed granting reviving, So we ask all in Jesus' blessed name. Amen.