What's new
Christian Community Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate fully in the fellowship here, including adding your own topics and posts, as well as connecting with other members through your own private inbox!

Proper Bible Interpretation

I was taught that Scripture can interpret Scripture and that Context is the key to understanding Scripture. Search the Scriptures, be a Berean
2 Chr 7:14 is an example and was to Israel and not the body of Christ..Yet, churches try to apply the terms of this verse to their congregations.
I am glad you brought this up. There are two fundamental truths in that first part-- Scripture most certainly interprets Scripture; and context is definitely important in interpretation. But, unfortunately, the second of those two truths is used to the exclusion of other hermeneutical truths and leads to errors of interpretation, such as the one we see in the reference to 2 Chronicles 7:14.

If context is king, then the bulk of the Old Testament is relegated to history. It becomes no more than simply an account of God's dealings with Israel. But, if that is true, then what do we do with New Testament scriptures such as the following?

"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." (2 Timothy 3:16-17).​
"For whatever things were written before were written for our learning, that we through endurance (Greek hupomoné) and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope." (Romans 15:4).​

In the Greek the "all" (πᾶσα) of 2 Timothy 3:16 is extensive and carries the meaning of "every" and "any" in the sense of referring to the whole. And the Greek "whatever" (ὅσα) of Romans 15:4 literally means "whatsoever": in other words, it applies to every thing you find written in the Word of God that existed at that time-- the Old Testament.

The principles of God are revealed in His dealings with Israel, indeed with mankind in general, as recounted in the Old Testament. These principles transcend the events in which they are revealed. By this I mean that when God shows grace instead of judgment, mercy instead of punishment, the necessity of humbleness, the desirability of lawfulness, the blessing of forgiveness, it does not matter under which specific context that occurs: the principle transcends it.

For example: take the principle that God honors true humility with mercy. This is demonstrated multiple times in the history of Israel. But it's also demonstrated with pagan nations. We see judgment on Nineveh replaced by mercy when Nineveh wholeheartedly repented. Jonah knew that would happen ... because he knew God. He understood the principle. The principle was that genuine repentance results in God's mercy, regardless of the circumstance. That's why he did not want to preach to the Ninevites; they were so evil that he did not want them forgiven. Anyway, to summarize-- the principles of God are demonstrated in numerous specific historical contexts, but transcend those contexts. Put plainly: we cannot limit a principle to an event.

All of which leads me to 2 Chronicles 7:14. Yes, the words "if My people who are called by My name will humble themselves, and pray and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land" were spoken by the Lord God to Solomon after the dedication of the First Temple. But the principle contained in those words is an expression of a doctrine God had made clear from the beginning of time. Therefore we would be incorrect to limit it to just that point in history.

The New Testament writers often used allusions to specific events in the history of Israel to teach lessons and principles that applied to both Christ and the Church. I can think of Paul's use of portions of the Exodus story to teach the principle that disobedience results in punishment to the church at Corinth (1 Corinthians 10:1-17). There are many other examples.

Yes, we need to be Bereans. After all, the Holy Spirit through Paul refers to them as "more noble than the Thessalonians" because they not only received the gospel with great eagerness but daily examined (Greek anakrino: to search, judge, discern) the Scriptures to see if these teachings were true. (Acts 17:11) But those Scriptures they examined were Old Testament and they clearly did not limit themselves to the context of Old Testament events but to the principles and types that God revealed in them.

Therefore, respectfully, as a Berean I suggest that those who apply 2 Chronicles 7:14 to the church are correct. God will indeed respond to genuine repentance on the part of His people --the Church-- with mercy, grace and restoration.
 
Believing the gospel of one's salvation, 1 Cor 15:1-4, Christ's death for ones sins, his burial and resurrection are what we are to believe and be saved. (Eph 1:13,14)
In believing this gospel we receive total forgiveness, redemption, and righteousness before God. We are not required to do what is in 2 Chr 7:14 to be forgiven and saved; that would be faith plus works. Yes, 2 Cor 7:14 has meaning for us as does all Scripture, but this is not the gospel that we the body of Christ are to be believe and be saved. Fulfilling the requirements of 2 Chr 7:14 does not qualify us for salvation because all of us are unqualified so we must trust in the finished work of Christ at Calvary to save us. We are saved by grace alone thru faith in Christ alone plus nothing else required. When people are mistaught that they must also fulfill the requirements stated in 2 Chr 7:14 plus faith in Christ crucified then that is adding to the gospel with faith plus works that Paul warns against in Gal 1:8,9.
The only kind of repentance that saves anyone is changing their mind and believing the good news of their salvation. 1 Cor 15:1-4
 
2 Chronicles 7:14 has absolutely nothing to do with salvation. I'm not sure why you think it was an issue? :unsure: Or that I would think it did?

What you wrote about salvation is absolutely correct. One hundred percent. So, how did 2 Chronicles 7:14 (which has to do with chastening) get mixed up in there? :scratch:
 
Please excuse my lack of understanding, I try to follow the threads to help increase my knowledge, but sometimes I draw a blank. I don't understand how 2 Chronicles 7:14 would be used as part of the gospel or refer to the church. It seems that the verse is referring to Israel, and is a common theme with Israel's back and forth trips into idolatry.
 
I don't understand how 2 Chronicles 7:14 would be used as part of the gospel or refer to the church.
As to the gospel, me either. But apparently some are doing it. Beats me how.

As to an application to the Church, it would apply to periods and areas where believers might grow self-sufficient (as they did in Laodicea) or lazy (as they did in Sardis) and fail to be about God's business. True repentance on their part would restore both the fellowship and the blessing of God's presence in their lives.
 
Just catching up here. I agree that 2 Chronicles 7:14 has nothing to do with salvation. For the Christian it is moreso addressing fellowship with God, chastening (the Lord chastens those He loves - Heb 12:6) and the sanctification (growth) process.

When we believe the gospel we are justified before God (outside of time - 'eternal salvation'?). Sancification is the present tense of salvation. Its an active free-will process we go through (by prayer and faith, crucifying our sinful nature) until the consummation of our salvation where we receive our eternal glorified bodies at the historical Rapture event. The semantics can get confusing.

Many Churches muddy the waters with this and don't explain it or even understand it well.

At least thats how I understand it, please correct me if I am wrong. *maisey*
 
Just catching up here. I agree that 2 Chronicles 7:14 has nothing to do with salvation. For the Christian it is moreso addressing fellowship with God, chastening (the Lord chastens those He loves - Heb 12:6) and the sanctification (growth) process.

When we believe the gospel we are justified before God (outside of time - 'eternal salvation'?). Sancification is the present tense of salvation. Its an active free-will process we go through (by prayer and faith, crucifying our sinful nature) until the consummation of our salvation where we receive our eternal glorified bodies at the historical Rapture event. The semantics can get confusing.
(y)

Therefore, respectfully, as a Berean I suggest that those who apply 2 Chronicles 7:14 to the church are correct. God will indeed respond to genuine repentance on the part of His people --the Church-- with mercy, grace and restoration.
(y)
 
I remember 2 Chronicles 7:14 being a big 90s to 2000's slogan and hoped for among evangelicals in the USA. Adding it into faith/salvation wouldn't surprise me, especially among the wackiness we've seen in many churches and with TV/radio "rock star" fleecers!
 
Another one I think is an issue is Malachi 3:10

Malachi 3:10 NASB95 — “Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, so that there may be food in My house, and test Me now in this,” says the LORD of hosts, “if I will not open for you the windows of heaven and pour out for you a blessing until it overflows.

Many churches like to apply this to the current NT church. Not sure it works that way in proper exegesis.

Specifically a church I know is on a building project and looking for more funds. They cited this verse and said that you would gain blessings for donating. Meh that just doesn't sit right with me. Does God need our money or does He provide?

Other ministries in the established church are suffering and people aren't serving as is, yet the church needs to gain another campus? Rick Warren, is that you?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hol
The Old Testament tithe was exclusively for the feeding of the priesthood. It consisted of grains, fruits, vegetables, and livestock. So it does not have a direct application to the New Testament. However the idea of supporting those who minister for God is still applicable. Scripture confirms this.

The injunction in Deuteronomy 25:4 to "not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain," is mentioned twice in the New Testament-- 1 Corinthians 9:9 and 1 Timothy 5:18. The context of all three references was for the support of God's dedicated servants. Galatians 6:6 is more specific. It says, "The one who is taught the word is to share all good things with the one who teaches him."

But nowhere in the New Testament is there an amount required. The word tithe literally means a tenth. Therefore, an Old Testament tithe was ten percent of everything a person was able to produce. This belonged to God and He gave it for the support of His ministers. But no such percentage of one's income is specified in the New Testament.

Nevertheless, the New Testament does clearly continue the idea of support for ministers, as Paul states plainly in 1 Corinthians 1:9. (For that matter, Scripture teaches that the people of God should support all of God's work.) But it does not specify how much an individual should give. That is left up to the individual.

There are some principles given, though. The gift should be voluntarily and gladly offered (2 Corinthians 9:7). The gift should be generous, in response to what God has given you. In this way God is praised (2 Corinthians 9:11).

What you give is between you and God, nobody else. Not the church, nor its leaders. But since what you give is between you and God, He will note your generosity (or lack thereof) and treat you in like kind. Be assured, though, that while He will definitely not reward a miserly heart, He will not demand of someone more than they can afford.

Sadly. I see many rich pastors supported by people who live in poverty. The pastors misuse Old Testament scriptures and pile on both guilt and promises of great reward from God to cause poor people to sacrifice what little they have while the pastor lives in luxury. This angers me greatly. I personally do not believe a pastor should live better than the flock he tends. In fact I believe it would be God-honoring were he to have less than they and be an example of generosity in all things.

Anyway, I hope this helps someone.
 
Back
Top