A History Lesson (1)
and My people who are called by My name humble themselves and pray and seek My face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, will forgive their sin and will heal their land. 2 Chronicles 7:14 NASB
And – Is this promise good for us? Is it conditional? Does it begin with “and” or with “if”?
Most translations seem to treat the promise as an eternal conditional declaration. What I mean is that the opening vav is translated as the conditional “if” rather than the consecutive “and,” and the promise is applied to everyone who believes he or she is called by God’s name. So it becomes an eternal conditional. All we have to do is humble ourselves and God will heal our land, right? It’s possible to translate the vav as “so, that, then” or “also,” but the usual word for “if” is not the attached vav. It is one of the following: ‘im, ‘illu, lu’, ‘ilmal’. The NASB is correct. This is not a conditional promise. It is a declaration about the future actions of God’s chosen people at the time it was delivered.
The first nine chapters of 2 Chronicles recount the history of David and Solomon as Israel finally achieves a united monarchy. But the audience is not the people who lived under the reign of David and Solomon. The audience is Israel in post-exilic times. Traditionally, the author is Ezra, who recalls Israel’s history in order to provide the current, post exilic audience with hope that the glory of the past can once again become reality. What this means is that the original audience are those who have already experienced the collapse of the kingdom, the exile and the return to the broken world of Israel. Now Ezra (if he is the actual author) exhorts these people to remember what God did in the past and bring themselves into alignment with God’s commandments in order that Israel will once again rise to prominence.
In this verse, the technical phrase “who are called by My name” is probably better translated as “over whom My name is called” since the verse is passive reflexive, i.e., an action done by another affecting the subject. In other words, these people do not call themselves God’s people. Someone else calls them His people. Who is that? If we pay attention to the intended audience, it would be the Gentiles who occupied the land when the returning Israelites arrived. They are still God’s people, of course, but they are not God’s people because they self-designate themselves as His people. In this case, God and Gentiles provide the recognition.
Does this apply to us? Well, that’s a big question. We are not returning from captivity. We aren’t looking for a new united monarchy. We probably aren’t even recognized as God’s people by a pagan populace, especially if we are not Jewish and do not live like Jews. In other words, if we adopt the first principle of exegesis, this verse is not about us and its promise is not for us. Maybe. Tomorrow we will see what else we can find here.
Topical Index: ‘im, ‘illu, lu’, ‘ilmal’, if, 2 Chronicles 7:14
It’s about time somebody addressed this verse. The religious element of America has long assumed that this verse must be about them, and, further, that the other promises to Israel are equally for them, too, but, somehow, the Law for Israel can be freely interpreted or willingly ignored at the same time, but this verse assumes repentance for NOT keeping the Law. All of it. I have seen it most commonly trotted out in reference to abortion issues, and these are dire and not to be diminished in any way, for murder is murder, but our justice system is not set up to handle murder correctly already, and the populace is not handling the conditions that are creating the problem either. Community according to Torah? Where do you find that in America where “every man does what is right in his own eyes”?
We have yet to be purged of our sins (captivity) and the foreign gods are alive and well; no healing possible. There is a mindset that assumes that all we have to do is to change the laws of the land to mimic the Law of heaven and then all will be well because at that point we can FORCE the rest of the populace to ‘be good’ but when did that ever work? Besides, we don’t even have that Law right. The last time it was seriously tried – with this verse in mind – was over a hundred years ago, and it was about the Sunday Blue Laws. Which are not dead, by the way, and are being actively agitated for again. All in the name of Go – and this verse. Of course. Like a friend told me yesterday, this is highly selective reading, for sure.
Misinterpreting 2 Chron 7:14 as applying to “Ah-murica” is one huge pet peeve of mine! For an excellent interpretation of this verse, in its proper context, dispelling this false notion, look up “got questions 2 chron 7.14”. Even better is “pleaseconvinceme 2 chron 7.14”. I especially like the latter’s careful exposition proving it’s NOT applicable to America, which is followed by the subtitle But It Can Still Apply to America, Right? [LOL!].
Miss Hayes Christians for the most part didn’t catch the separation of Passover in communion with that in mind and the setting long forgotten of the Passover with Yeshua. Forgotten also the setting of this verse too many things Yahweh aligned for this sitting in history diamond me never come again but precept the poor individuals or groups but not Nations can still apply.
P.S. I forgot to mention leaving Egypt but not without Egypt still in us !!!
So once again we have the American revolution; the NASB (and) vs KJB (if). Let the battle begin.
p.s. Does America really have a Justice system, whether it be distributive, restorative or retributive? Is it not more accurately described as a Legal system of combative lawyers, politicians and judges? Vive la difference.