In conjunction with Flag Day, here is some commentary on a text that Christians have often misappropriated. I’m specifically probing the use of this biblical text:
This “verse” is commonly seen and referred to. Obviously, it is meant to be encouraging, right? Or is it more of an or-else admonition? Or a promise?
But how should I read and interpret it? More specifically, who and what are being identified and referred to by “my people” and “their land”? And how would I know?
The answer is context. Pretty much always, the first glance should be to context.
And make no mistake: there is a context. The “verse” does not stand alone. The words are not devoid of meaning by themselves; however, divorcing them from their context runs great risk of changing their author-intended meaning.
The immediate literary context is a narrative and contains a word from God that comes to Solomon in a historical/situational context around the completion of first temple. The broad literary context would include all of 2Chronicles, and a more expansive view of the historical context might consider events, socio-cultural elements, the geopolitical scenario, and any other situations that could have impacted the writing.
Back to the immediate literary context. In every major English version I consulted, v13 and v14 constitute a single sentence, in which we see this reality: what God will do follows what God will already have done. And what will God have already done? Allow negative circumstances to befall His own people, that’s what. In other words, God is saying this: 1) now that this place is built and (2) I have agreed to inhabit it, (3) when the people do wrong, and (4) after I let them suffer, (5) if they repent, (6) I will forgive them and heal their land.
But I still have questions. Don’t you?
Backing up, I ask this again: who are the people of God here? The people over whom King Solomon ruled, that’s who. And whose sin is to be forgiven, and whose land will be healed? Those same ancient Israelites’ sin, and the land in which they lived. Aren’t these readings obvious? But what does “heal their land” mean, exactly?
But wait. Is it possible that one or more additional hermeneutical layers could be in play here? For starters, it’s conceivable that 2Chronicles was based on oral/written tradition and pieced together somewhat after the events this passage describes. The consensus of scholarship appears to hold that the book was written some time after the Babylonian captivity. (Jewish tradition also holds that Ezra the priest wrote both Chronicles books together. See this page.) The written compiling took place a few centuries after the events described—and also after the completion of the 2nd temple.
Does this knowledge change, or add to, my interpretational schema? It just might. Now speculating some . . . if I had learned that the text was written much later, and that certain cultural shifts were occurring at that later time, the background concerns might turn out to be different.
What if I discovered that 2Chronicles was written more from an ideological perspective than a “historical annals” one? This comment appears in the Faithlife Study Bible commentary from Logos:
7:14 heal their land God’s response in 2 Chronicles is somewhat different from in 1 Kings. While 1 Kings focuses on the faithfulness only of Solomon (1 Kgs 9:4–5), the additional material in 2 Chronicles expresses the need for God’s people to be faithful. This call to return to Yahweh, along with His promise of restoration, would have been especially significant for the Chronicler’s audience of returned exiles. – Faithlife Study Bible (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2012, 2016), 2 Ch 7:14.
I wasn’t sure what was in view with the idiomatic phrase “people who are called by my name.” God’s personal name is the tetragrammaton, so I don’t imagine the “-el” in the word “Israel” (cf. Elohim, God or gods) is the referent here. Commentary from the NetBible’s translation notes is helpful on this and other points:
Notes for 7:14 (excerpted)
Heb “over whom my name is called.” The Hebrew idiom “call the name over” indicates ownership. See 2 Sam 12:28.
Heb “seek my face,” where “my face” is figurative for God’s presence and acceptance.
Here the phrase “heal their land” means restore the damage done by the drought, locusts and plague mentioned in v. 13. Biblical Studies Press, The NET Bible First Edition Notes (Biblical Studies Press, 2006), 2 Ch 7:14.
We do get some clarification there, assuming the NET Bible’s commentators are on target. “Healing the land” refers first to previous tragic circumstances in that era. “Seek my face” and “called by my name” are, in turn, idiomatic and figurative.
The initial reference is rather clear and certain, that is, those referred to are the Israelite people of Solomon’s time. What application could be made beyond that time and place, though? It’s obvious to me, but perhaps not to all, that no blanket application should be made to another country in another era. Surely we should not lift this brief text and apply it directly to the 21C USA as an entity. And why not? For starters, because America as a whole
- does not constitute God’s people,
- did not build a temple, and
- does not have a king named Solomon.
Principles might still be observed and applied, and maybe I shouldn’t be so definitive. But there has been such a history of misapplication and arrogant assumption by Americans who conflate their modern country with the estate of an ancient people of God, so I can’t help myself.
~ ~ ~
If one wants to read and interpret a text well today, he should first seek to understand what was being said yesterday. Essentially, one must retreat first to the original literary and historical contexts, to the best of his ability. Only then should he proceed to attempt to draw a dotted line to the present.
You might, for example, take the geopolitical narrative from a time before Jesus Messiah and seek to apply it to the church today. Perhaps you subscribe to some manner of “replacement theology,” as I do, so you will naturally see applications to the universal church that were not in view originally. But watch out: just as any application of 2 Chron 7:14 would be limited, or even nullified, vis-à-vis today’s (constitutionally different) Jews, the application must also be limited when considering other believing groups, e.g., Methodists or Baptists. No latter-day franchise is under consideration, but an application might be carefully made to the people of God found in various places (and churches) today. And a further lesson might be cautiously drawn: any individual who does something for God’s honor, then turns onto a sinful path, then turns back, would do well to pay attention to such a God who will hear his prayer, forgive his sin, and heal.
God’s kingship is not instantiated in a nation-state today—not in the U.S.A., not in Israel, and not in any other one. I know of no good reason to think God will inhabit an earthly kingdom again. The Jesus-and-later evidence appears to run quite to the contrary.
The primary application of the text, and the only one that carries much certainty for me, goes something like this:
I read the 2Chron 7:14 message from God in its literary context.
I ponder the historical context of the events the text narrates, and I also consider the history of the creation of the narrative.
I ascertain that this passage is about the ancient, theocratic people of God, a/k/a ancient Israel, prior to the advent of Jesus the Messiah. Its backdrop is the construction of the 1st Temple, God’s special dwelling place there.
I also note that the writing of 2 Chronicles occurred in conjunction with the construction of the 2nd temple, so I consider both the notion and physical reality of the Temple to be likely integral in the progress of interpretation.
After affirming and understanding the above, one could then seek to apply the text to whatever God dwells in today—not a Temple, but the church as a whole, or an individual who is “called by His name.”
– B. Casey, 5/15/24 – 6/11/24
Dr. Brian Casey | Subjects of the Kingdom 