By Jim on
Bible, Theology & Philosophy
2 Chronicles 7:14
Bible Passages

This verse will be preached in many evangelical pulpits is as a rallying cry. In so many sermons, the “people” referred to in the passage are the American people, and the “land” is the American land. The meaning of the text is understood as an invitation to 21st century America to “return to God” and then enjoy God’s blessing once again. It’s no wonder one scholar said that 2 Chronicles 7:14 is “the John 3:16 of the American civil religion.” If nothing else, the question must be asked of this kind of sermon: Where should we “take American back” to? Do you mean back to the era of the Founders, or back to the 1950s, or 1980s? When, exactly, in America’s blip of an existence did everything fall apart? But the fact is 2 Chronicles 7:14 isn’t talking about America or national identity or some generic sense of “revival.” To apply the verse this way is, whatever one’s political ideology, theological liberalism.

Discussion

Thu, 01/14/16

I do think one can understand this text in context, and by way of legitimate application proclaim that God will respond positively to any people who truly humble themselves and pray and seek the Lord’s face and turn from their wicked ways. Wouldn’t God be inclined to bless any people who did this? Can Russell Moore say that He would not? Didn’t God do that very thing for the Ninevites, who were outside the covenant? Has he not done it in the past on our shores? After all, “Righteousness exalts a nation, and sin is a disgrace to any people.”

The real problem I have with using 2 Chron 7:14 is not sufficiently emphasizing just what it is calling for.

Thu, 01/14/16

OK, first of all, 2 Chronicles 7:14 was first said not to Israel when they were returning from exile, but rather upon the dedication of Solomon’s Temple. It was looking into a future when Israel had fallen away from God even more than they already had—let’s not forget here that Israel had had at least two brutal civil wars (between David and Saul’s parties, between David and Absalom’s party) in the past generation, and Amnon’s treatment of Tamar, and David’s response, not to mention that of his sons, would suggest that there was sin and isolatry aplenty even in the golden years of David and Solomon. Never mind on Abraham’s part, if we want to go further back.

So we would infer that Moore’s objection—to what America do we want to go back to?—would apply to Israel as well. As such, our question of whether we can, or ought to, claim the promise of 2 Chronicles 7:14 really rests on the question of whether the promise applies only to Israel, or to the Church as well, and if the answer is no, how do we reconcile that idea with the fact that God’s character is consistent? It seems to be fun “gut check” for us dispensationalists.

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

Thu, 01/14/16

To me, this is a “no-brainer.” Yes, God is consistent in His character; however, the Church has never been promised a “land” on this earth like Israel has. This promise applies specifically and exclusively to Israel. The context is clear. Should believers today humble themselves and pray and seek God’s face and turn from their wicked ways? Of course. That’s not really the important question that should be asked here. Will God hear from heaven and forgive sin? Yes. But we believers have no “land” that we can lay claim to to be healed. Our citizenship is in heaven. This world is not my home (don’t make me sing it!).

Should we pray for revival so that the majority of Americans respect God and His word? I have no problem with this; however, I have a problem with the Church laying claim to what God specifically promised to Jews in a different historical context.

But … I could be wrong.