"As they passed the rows of houses they saw through the open doors that men were sweeping and dusting and washing dishes, while the women sat around in groups, gossiping and laughing.
"What has happened?" the Scarecrow asked a sad-looking man with a bushy beard, who wore an apron and was wheeling a baby-carriage along the sidewalk.
"Why, we've had a revolution, your Majesty -- as you ought to know very well," replied the man; "and since you went away the women have been running things to suit themselves. I'm glad you have decided to come back and restore order, for doing housework and minding the children is wearing out the strength of every man in the Emerald City."
"Hm!" said the Scarecrow, thoughtfully. "If it is such hard work as you say, how did the women manage it so easily?"
"I really do not know," replied the man, with a deep sigh. "Perhaps the women are made of cast-iron.""
- L. Frank Baum, "The Land of Oz"
Monday, July 13, 2009
if my people who are called by my name will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sins and restore their land.
What does that verse mean, really? I hear it quoted a lot. And usually, (actually always), the speaker is quoting it in the context of the moral culture war in America.
They'll quote the verse and say, "If Christians will pray, then God will heal our land" and by that they mean America. And by "heal", from the context of what else they say, they seem to mean will fix our moral problems. (I really like what Jared says in his sermon. "We like our heathens well-behaved."
I just got yet another email, citing this verse, that says,
Our nation is/has been on the slippery slope for a long time. If you look around you will find corruption, greed, moral decay, and a steady move away from the things that made us great. The principles upon which this nation was founded are no longer our backbone. However, we can reverse this trend.
Here's my question for you: How does a Christian under the new covenant interpret that verse properly?
Look at the whole passage in context:
11 So Solomon finished the Temple of the Lord, as well as the royal palace. He completed everything he had planned to do in the construction of the Temple and the palace. 12 Then one night the Lord appeared to Solomon and said, “I have heard your prayer and have chosen this Temple as the place for making sacrifices. 13 At times I might shut up the heavens so that no rain falls, or command grasshoppers to devour your crops, or send plagues among you. 14 Then if my people who are called by my name will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sins and restore their land. 15 My eyes will be open and my ears attentive to every prayer made in this place. 16 For I have chosen this Temple and set it apart to be holy—a place where my name will be honored forever. I will always watch over it, for it is dear to my heart.
17 “As for you, if you faithfully follow me as David your father did, obeying all my commands, decrees, and regulations, 18 then I will establish the throne of your dynasty. For I made this covenant with your father, David, when I said, ‘One of your descendants will always rule over Israel.’
19 “But if you or your descendants abandon me and disobey the decrees and commands I have given you, and if you serve and worship other gods, 20 then I will uproot the people from this land that I have given them. I will reject this Temple that I have made holy to honor my name. I will make it an object of mockery and ridicule among the nations. 21 And though this Temple is impressive now, all who pass by will be appalled. They will ask, ‘Why did the Lord do such terrible things to this land and to this Temple?’
22 “And the answer will be, ‘Because his people abandoned the Lord, the God of their ancestors, who brought them out of Egypt, and they worshiped other gods instead and bowed down to them. That is why he has brought all these disasters on them.’”
Remember the old covenant? "If you obey me there will be blessing, and if you disobey there will be curses." The blessing would be that they would live long in the Promised Land, that there would be plenty of rain, and therefore food, and their enemies would not be a threat. But the curse was that they would be uprooted from their land, that there would be drought, and that their enemies would defeat them.
The "land" was a specific geographic location that God promised Abraham.
But Jesus said to the woman at the well,
“Believe me, dear woman, the time is coming when it will no longer matter whether you worship the Father on this mountain or in Jerusalem. 22 You Samaritans know very little about the one you worship, while we Jews know all about him, for salvation comes through the Jews. 23 But the time is coming—indeed it’s here now—when true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and in truth. The Father is looking for those who will worship him that way. 24 For God is Spirit, so those who worship him must worship in spirit and in truth.”
As I look back at the passage in 2 Chronicles I see several things - Jews, the temple in Jerusalem, the Old Covenant, and finally, the land. Specifically that promised land known as Canaan/Palestine/Israel.
So again I ask, how should Christians understand this verse?
Most Christians I know, know enough to at least not say aloud, "America is the New Testament Israel." But to interpret "heal their land" as some kind of "turn America back to the generic Judeo-Christian God" that even Deists and Unitarians were happy with back in the founding of this country, so that we are moral, have prayer in schools, and aren't liberal... doesn't seem to me like good exegesis!
Here's what I know: Under the new covenant, God's people are Christians. In fact, all who believe in Jesus are children of Abraham. I also know that Jesus replaced the temple with himself. And further, that Christians themselves are now considered "the temple" because God dwells in us.
I also know that Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world." It's no longer about geo-political borders. So when I read, "land" in 2 Chronicles 7:14, and remember that Jesus said that true worshippers are concerned with the "who" and not the "where", I think that "healing our land" for the Christian must refer to our relationship with God. Right?
Yet, even reputable commentators say things like this about this verse:
"It expresses, as does no other passage in the Bible, the stipulations that God lays down for a nation to experience his blessing, whether that nation be Solomon's, Ezra's, or our own. Those who have been chosen to be his people must cease from their sins, turn from living lives of proud self-centeredness, pray to the Lord, and yield their desires to his Word and his will. Then, and only then, will he grant heaven-sent revival." (J. Barton Payne in the Expositor's Bible Commentary).
I might be able to go there with him depending on what he means by revival. People in our country (and in every country) need Jesus. Moving our country's values back to the 1950's, 1850's or 1750's won't send anybody to heaven. Without Jesus, a morally good nation would be gaining the world but losing our soul.
What do you think?
Trackbacks:
Trackback URL: http://thinklings.org/bloo.trackback.php/5509.
Comments on "2 Chronicles 7:14":
2. Thor
- 07/13/2009 4:36 pm CDT
Some thoughts:
1. The direct (and primary) application, I would argue, is Israel.
2. While the "application" for us (or any believer in Israel's Messiah) appears to be quite obvious (turn back to God and He will heal you from your sin), it seems best to leave the phrase "I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sins and restore their land" in a God/Israel (covenant) context, echoing the promise of Hosea and others.
Every time I hear a modern culture warrior invoke this verse in reference to America, I almost go into convulsions.
4. Matt
- 07/13/2009 4:57 pm CDT
Of course, there are also those countries in the world today that took this to mean heal the literal land. They repented of sins as a nation and droughts ended, plants started growing, etc. There are some videos out there that explain it better than I can. Maybe that is a possibility? With the context quoted above... it makes me wonder...
5. Bird
- 07/13/2009 7:10 pm CDT
I agree with Thor.
By the way, is that the real Thor? I mean, the former Thinklings poster Thor? Calvinist Thor? Thor from H-town?
Thor, is that you?
6. Bill
- 07/13/2009 7:54 pm CDT
Yes, Thor, is that you?
J-Mac-Fanboy Thor?
Microsoft-Bigot Thor?
(Just kidding, bro :-)
7. Thor (yes,all the above Thor)
- 07/14/2009 6:44 am CDT
J-Mac-Fanboy? Calvinist? (scoffing) Microsoft-Bigot? Please...well, ok, yes, I am guilty of some of those :-) Bill: as I confessed over lunch the other day, I am obtaining a bit of a softer edge here lately.
Bird: I believe that might be one of the better ways for us to read and apply this passage today. Though I might not go so far as Richard does in applying it to the Church, there is a principle that can perhaps be gleaned from his statement: if we turn to back to God He will forgive our sin and heal us. Sort of our promise for today.
For the record: my troubles with inerrancy, along with my coziness with Wright's view of justification and an unexplainable affinity for Bultmann would definately not get me invited to tea and crumpets at the Mac's :-)
8. Enkurio
- 07/14/2009 7:17 am CDT
The "economy" of the Old Testament is that God worked through a nation to be a witness to the world for God. He chose the nation of Israel and several covenants God made with the nation Israel.
One of them was conditional - the Palestinian covenant Deut. 28-30. If you obey me, I will bless you and you will be healthy and your crops will grow big etc...but if you do not obey I will have countries take you over, I will cause you to have hemorrhoids (is that where those things come from, not obeying God ;-))
I may be misguided in my theology (I'm sure this forum will set me straight :-)) but if you are a covenant theologian and believe that the covenants of the O.T. are spiritually applied to the church today, does it not beg the application of nationalistic O.T. verses to be applied to America?
God today works through His Church and individual believers and not through America as a nation.
9. iMonk
- 07/14/2009 9:17 am CDT
Applies to the church typologically as fulfilled by Christ, but it isn't a direct prophecy of the church. It applied to Israel and other than illustrating God's general command to repent and believe, doesn't apply anywhere now specifcally (i.e. with the promise.)
It's a good test verse to show people they don't know how to read the Bible. Guaranteed to make people mad.
10. Shrode
- 07/14/2009 9:38 am CDT
"test verse" Oh, man. I guess that's true. What a great way to start a course on hermeneutics.
Another great test verse to show people they don't know how to read the Bible: "Wherever two or three are gathered in my name, I am with them."
Also a great way to make people mad. :)
12. Brian
- 07/14/2009 10:55 am CDT
"Wherever two or three are gathered in my name, I am with them."
I've actually never been comfortable with the interpretation I've heard most people give for this verse. Mainly that Jesus is present in some special way - typically in the context of a church service - that is not true for other occasions.
Perhaps this could be a post for the future? :)
13. Bill
- 07/14/2009 12:15 pm CDT
Another great test verse to show people they don't know how to read the Bible: "Wherever two or three are gathered in my name, I am with them."
I don't know how to read the Bible.
What's this verse mean and how have I been misapplying it all my adult Christian life?
14. Enkurio
- 07/14/2009 12:17 pm CDT
Shrode,
Thanks for the clarification. I did take 10 mins and read the wiki entry for Covenant Theology. Makes sense now.
However, there is still an underlying belief that America is the new Israel. Is there a theological term for this belief? It seems to have originated from the Puritans: John Cotton's and John Winthrop's sermons. My reference:
http://www.kimmillerconcernedchristians.com/Unsealings/1425.pdf
I'm not sure how reliable the source is but I can see how these sermons put the idea in people's heads. Was Puritan preaching so good that those ideas live in peoples heads today? :-)
Obviously not so that leaves the idea that lay people with poor hermeneutics hang onto this idea to satisfy their theology to directly apply as much of the O.T. as they can to their Christian lives. No?
15. ruben
- 07/14/2009 12:20 pm CDT
When I hear this passage quoted this way it makes me think about the 50's and how we idealize that time, how we want to turn back to it. But I think part of it is wishful thinking, our laws may have been better then as far as abortion but racial discrimination was still accepted. I do think that we are worse of now than in the past, but we have always been sinful even then. I think we should not mix the world with God's Kingdom, also if people collectively pursue good then the natural results of this will flow to them, however we equate blessing with material success and in the NT blessing is always given in spite of our hardship.
16. Shrode
- 07/14/2009 1:19 pm CDT
I don't know how to read the Bible.
What's this verse mean and how have I been misapplying it all my adult Christian life?
Oh, Bill, chill. :) You do so know how to read the Bible. Of course perhaps my arrogant elitist winking "We know something not everyone else knows" tone to imonk deserved your sarcasm.
And so I apologize. Please forgive me. I just reread it. And I'm not proud of it.
I'll give you the short version of what we're talking about - that passage seems to be talking about Church discipline. Jesus is saying, in context, that when two or three gather in his name in disciplining another member for sin, that he is supporting them, and that they have his authority in what they do.
15"If your brother sins against you,[b] go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. 16But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.'[c] 17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.
18"I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be[d]bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[e] loosed in heaven.
19"Again, I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. 20For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them." (Matthew 18:15-19)
Personally, if I'm using a verse to talk about how God is with us, I don't use that one, because I don't think that was Jesus' point.
Though I do agree that Jesus is with his people, whether they be 1 or 500, just not from that verse. :) Am I being too picky? Maybe. I just think it's important to only give passages the meaning that was intended. We can say "true" things with the wrong bible passages. (Like a sermon I saw once that saw the plan of salvation in the OT floating axehead story.)
17. Shrode
- 07/14/2009 1:37 pm CDT
Enkurio wrote:I'm not sure how reliable the source is but I can see how these sermons put the idea in people's heads. Was Puritan preaching so good that those ideas live in peoples heads today? :-)
I do know that not only did the Puritans preach, talk and write this way, but many of our founding fathers did as well. In fact, some modern politicians speak this way too. (Remember the "shining city on a hill"? That language seems to have been lifted from places like Daniel 9:16 and Matthew 5:14 - "You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden")
There seems to have been many people from the time of the birth of our country who saw America as "a modern Israel". Whether they thought of America as THE NT Israel, I'm not so sure. Though it does seem, from the source you cited, that John Cotton did.
Why do so many laypeople have this idea today? Some of it probably did come from our forefathers. There are many old ideas and phrases that filter down through generations without people knowing where they came from. ("God helps those that help themselves" for example.)
On the other hand, I think some of it's just natural. Especially when you start thinking of America as a Christian nation.
Obviously not so that leaves the idea that lay people with poor hermeneutics hang onto this idea to satisfy their theology to directly apply as much of the O.T. as they can to their Christian lives. No?
I'm not sure what this sentence means. You need some commas. :)I think I understand the last part though. Yes, I think a lot of laypeople are just trying to apply the OT to their lives, and it's quite innocent. The popular usage of Jeremiah 29:11 is a really good example of this, I think.
19. Bill
- 07/14/2009 9:20 pm CDT
Oh, Bill, chill. :) You do so know how to read the Bible. Of course perhaps my arrogant elitist winking "We know something not everyone else knows" tone to imonk deserved your sarcasm.
Hey Shrode,
My comment came across more snarky than I meant. I was smiling when I wrote it.
No apology necessary!!! If anything, I should apologize to you.
But, really, I don't know how to read the Bible. I think it's easy at times to minimize the honing of Bible skills that Seminary and being a full time pastor can grant a person. I am a layperson, I am no theologian, and I never (ever) had thought of that verse as not meaning what I've always thought it meant. My first reaction was to be slightly horrified.
I have to admit, though, that I'm still not sold :-) - I get the context thing, but I also think that the "where two or more" thing can be interpreted as a more general truth. In other words - "I'll be with you in church discipline. Because, after all, any time you gather I'm there!"
I could certainly be wrong, but I don't place this one is as "cut and dried" a position as "If my people". In other words, the common wisdom on "whenever two or more are gathered" may be right.
20. Bird
- 07/14/2009 11:43 pm CDT
For the record: my troubles with inerrancy, along with my coziness with Wright's view of justification and an unexplainable affinity for Bultmann would definately not get me invited to tea and crumpets at the Mac's :-)
Thor, you're a man after my own heart, brother ... though my unexplainable affinity might be directed more toward Barth. ;-)
21. Shrode
- 07/15/2009 1:28 pm CDT
But, really, I don't know how to read the Bible. I think it's easy at times to minimize the honing of Bible skills that Seminary and being a full time pastor can grant a person. I am a layperson, I am no theologian,
Don't sell yourself short. It's true that many ministers have seminary training (and they should), but you do know how to read the Bible. imonk's phrasing was perhaps a bit harsh, but I took him to mean that he used it as an example in an "introduction to studying the bible class".
I've tried to teach such classes to my folks, but I usually get this response - BORING!
(Oh and you may not be a "professional" theologian, but every Christian is a theologian in the sense that every Christian has a theology. And Bill, I've been around. You're a better theologian than most :-)
Anyway, the three main rules for reading the Bible that I try to teach are:
1.Context
2.Context
3.Context
It's that easy.
1.What's the immediate context? Read the paragraph above and below. What's going on? Who is speaking? Why is this being said? How does this sentence support the author's overall point?
2. What's the book's context? What is the book of the Bible about? Who wrote it? What are the major themes? Why was it written?
3. What's the Bible's context? What does the rest of Scripture say about this?
And that's it. I bet you know how to do that! I suspect you do it all the time.
and I never (ever) had thought of that verse as not meaning what I've always thought it meant. My first reaction was to be slightly horrified.
That's good. And honest. This is how we all feel the minute we hear a verse may not mean what we always thought.
The first time I ever read the story of the Rich Young Ruler, I read, "And he went away sad because he was very rich."
And I thought that meant he went away to go sell all his possessions just like Jesus said. He was just sad about it. When I heard that the common interpretation was that the rich young ruler went away and never came back, I was horrified. That's not how I understood it!
Go back and try and read that story again, without preconceptions about what happened. Can you see how I thought that?
Then I decided that I would "study" it and decide for myself. I have since decided that he did indeed reject Jesus' offer, because of how the disciples and Jesus respond after he leaves. (But I'm still holding out hope that my initial thought was right, and the rich young ruler is in heaven. :)
Kind of like how you are holding out hope that how you've always understood that verse is true. :)
I don't blame you for being horrified, and I appreciate your honesty.
I have to admit, though, that I'm still not sold :-) - I get the context thing, but I also think that the "where two or more" thing can be interpreted as a more general truth. In other words - "I'll be with you in church discipline. Because, after all, any time you gather I'm there!"
I've thought about that. And I suppose that's possible.
Another "I'm with you" verse is Matthew 24:20, "I will be with you always until the end of the age". I struggle with that one too.
Did he mean, "I am with you in a special way as you fulfill the great commission" or did he mean "I'm with you as fulfill the great commission because after all I'm with you all the time anyway."?
The second way, would seem consistent with your interpretation of Matthew 18.
Part of the reason, I lean as I do, is because "wherever two or three are gathered in my name, I am with them" and the verses following STRONGLY parallel and coincide what he said above regarding church discipline.
"Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven" - in other words, heavenly support in church discipline.
"one or two witnesses with you" equals "two or three together in my name"
He seems to be referring directly to the situation in the above verses.
Then there's the commentaries: the following is from Craig Blomberg - New American Commentary
Sadly, these verses have often been taken out of context and misused. It ought to be obvious that God regularly does not fulfill a promise like that of v. 19 if it is interpreted as his response to any kind of request. In this context v. 19 simply restates the theme of v. 18. The word for any "thing" (pragma) is a term frequently limited to judicial matters. Here Jesus reiterates the actions of Christian discipline, following God's guidelines, have his endorsement. This remains true even if they come from a very small fellowship, including but not limited to the "two or three" gathered in vv. 15-16. "My Father in heaven" links back with vv.10-14 and nicely balances "two of you on earth." God is of course omnipresent, but he is uniquely present in every Christian gathering as his Spirit indwells believers. In context v. 20 then assures God's blessings on action properly taken to try to reconcile believers to one another (as in vv.15-18). "I am with them" parallels "it will be done for you by my Father in heaven." Jesus implicitly equates himself with God and promises his continuing spiritual presence int he church after his death. Echoes of the Immanuel theme of 1:23 (God with us) reverberates.
So actually, Blomberg may actually fall somewhere in the middle between you and me on this one. :) I'm not sure.
23. Spike
- 07/18/2009 7:55 am CDT
What's important is what is never quoted in this scripture. God answers all the prayers that Solomon prayed to dedicate the new temple. And we've made the answer our "National Day of Prayer Song". It was days of sacrificing and ceremony, and takes up over two chapters in Chronicles. But then he answers the prayers to Solomon in private, adding the "clincher" that was NOT prayed for, and I believe God's very point- (2 Chron 7:19-22). The curse. We remember (and glorify) the answered prayers, but want to ignore that God is a jealous God who will not reward idolotry - "self thinking" - instead of relying on him. We suffer this curse now in the church. And we've done it to ourselves. And we sing to ignore it some more.
Leave a Comment:
And then there's this. Martin Selman in the Tyndale Old Testament Commentary writes:
Not so sure that I agree with him.
I especially have trouble with this one: the fact that spiritual restoration is offered to one nation also makes it available in principle to any other nation.
Where does he get that idea?