“Look Who’s Coming” – 1 Chronicles 2:1-9

Sunday, April 15^th, 2012 (Communion 10:50)

Text to be covered: I Chronicles chps 1-9

 “Look Who’s Coming”

Download Mp3

Bible Memory Verse for the Week: “Which of the two did what his father wanted?” “The first,” they answered. Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you.    —  Matthew 21:31

 

Background Information:

• Chronicles is not a popular book.  Despite its length (64 chapters in all) and its breathtaking scope, spanning all of Israel’s story from the creation of the world to the reconstruction following the Babylonian exile, few sermons or Bible studies touch on Chronicles.  Indeed, not a single reading from Chronicles is found in the common lectionary.  Perhaps this is not so surprising.  To many readers, Chronicles seems little more than a dull rewrite of Samuel and Kings, biased in favor of David and his descendants.  (Steven S. Tuell, Interpretation: 1 & 2 Chronicles, 1)
• The Mishnah, an important collection of Jewish law and tradition, lists Chronicles as one of the books to be read by the high priest on the night before Yom Kippur, so that he will keep awake (Yoma 1:6)–showing that the rabbis considered Chronicles not only important reading, but stimulating reading as well!  In fact, the great Christian scholar Jerome, translator of the Bible into Latin, said that we find in Chronicles “the meaning of the whole of sacred history.”  (Steven S. Tuell, Interpretation: 1 & 2 Chronicles, 1)
• For first-century Christian and Jewish communities, Scripture was understood to extend from Genesis to Chronicles (Braun 1998, 342).  This is shown in the gospels, when Jesus condemns the shedding of innocent blood “from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar” (Mt 23:35/Lk 11:51).  The story of Abel, the victim of the first murder, is of course found in Gn 4:1-16; the account of Zechariah’s murder is found in 2 Chr 24:20-22.  Chronicles, then, was regarded as the last book of Scripture–an appropriate placement for a work that attempts to distill and summarize the entire history of God’s dealings with God’s people.  (Steven S. Tuell, Interpretation: 1 & 2 Chronicles, 3)
• Chronicles is a story about a God who chooses one nation to bless all nations.  Chronicles is also about a people banished from God’s “promised land” because of sin and rebellion but restored to that privileged position by his gracious response to their repentance and renewed faith.  (Andrew E. Hill, The NIV Application Commentary: 1 & 2 Chronicles, 24)
• The “chronicle” as a literary form is a prose composition consisting of a series of reports or selected events in third-person style, arranged and dated in chronological order.  (Andrew E. Hill, The NIV Application Commentary: 1 & 2 Chronicles, 27)
• In one sense Chronicles repeats the story of Genesis and the story of the entire Bible and offers a “metanarrative” for all of human history: the story of “paradise lost” and the journey toward “paradise regained.”  (Andrew E. Hill, The NIV Application Commentary: 1 & 2 Chronicles, 24)
• Chronicles is sometimes thought of as a kind of alternative to the Books of Samuel and Kings.  The Greek OT called it the Book of Things Left Out, thus viewing it merely as a source of additional information to that which was available elsewhere.  This is to do it a complete disservice.  In the first place, it attempts a far greater coverage of what we might call sacred history than any other book of the OT, standing alongside not Sam-Kings only, but Genesis-Kings, since its genealogies (1 Chr 1-9) take us from Adam right up to Saul.

Furthermore, far from merely filling in gaps (which would not in any case explain the fact that it repeats a substantial amount of material from elsewhere) it offers a wholly individual perspective upon the vistas of history on which it is based.  This perspective, as we have said, is conditioned by its setting some time after the exile.  While the books of Kings leave the reader feeling (though the impression is superficial) that the exile has an air of finality about it, Chr does precisely the opposite.  The question “Why does the OT have two histories of Israel?” is misguided because it assumes that biblical history-writing is merely factual and purely objective.  There is in reality no such thing, whether in the Bible or not.  All history-writing is the fruit of reflection upon and interpretation of reported events.  Every writer of history operates within his own understanding of reality.  The biblical historians are historians as much as modern historians are.  They differ from modern historians by virtue of their different intellectual framework, whose central characteristic is the general belief that the meaning of history is imparted to it by the character and purposes of God.  If there are differences between the Chronicler and the authors of Sam-Kgs in their reflection upon Israel’s history, it is because the specific question which each must ask, viz. “What is God’s purpose for his people here and now?” is spoken from their different historical situations.   (J. G. McConville, The Daily Study Bible Series, 1 & 2 Chronicles, 2)

• The way the Chronicler summarizes such truths, teaching nothing which could not be found elsewhere in Scripture, yet teaching with a sense of vividness, contrast, and drama which are all his own, must recall the last book of the NT.  Like John and Revelation, Chronicles rounds off an entire major section of Scripture by saying “This is what it is really all about.  This is what it has always been about, what it always will be about.  (Michael Wilcock, The Message of Chronicles, 18)
• This study takes seriously the principles of biblical theology articulated in several of the NT letters concerning the value of the OT for the church.  Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles, indicated to Timothy that “all Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness” (2 Tm 3:16).  By “all Scripture,” Paul understood what we now call the OT (cf. “The holy Scriptures” in 3:15), since that collection of Jewish literature was the church’s only complete canon at the time he penned his letters.  More specifically, Paul recognized that those things written in the past (i.e., the OT) were meant to teach and warn us so that we might have hope and stand firm in the Christian faith (cf. Rom 15:4; 1 Cor 10:11).  (Andrew E. Hill, The NIV Application Commentary: 1 & 2 Chronicles, 25)
• The Chronicler’s attention to detail in the reporting of precise numbers and specific geography further heightens the tension between the ideal of a bygone era and the actual situation of the postexilic period.  Rather than discourage his audience, the chronicler seeks to bolster hope by helping his contemporaries grasp “the real meaning of grace.”  The record of Israel’s past serves as a barometer of sorts, indicating the full measure of covenant blessings God is capable of bestowing on the current generation of Jews.  (Andrew E. Hill, The NIV Application Commentary: 1 & 2 Chronicles, 105)
• The Chronicler understands that the earth is the Lord’s (Ps 24:1) and that as owner of the land, God can restore to Israel what he once gave them (e.g., Dt 1:8; 3:18; 8:10).  Likewise, Israel has received the land as a divine gift by faith in Yahweh’s covenant promises, and so by means of covenant renewal Israel can again be restored in the land of her ancestors (cf. Neh 9:36-37; 10:28-39).  (Andrew E. Hill, The NIV Application Commentary: 1 & 2 Chronicles, 106)
• Comparing the Chronicles with Samuel and Kings reveals that this account of Israel’s past is shaped to address the needs of the community recently returned from Babylonian exile.  It was written to encourage and guide the readers as they sought the full restoration of the kingdom.  (Luder Whitlock, Jr., New Geneva Study Bible, NKJV, 560)

 

 

Author:

• While scholarly agreement about the authorship of Chr-Neh is not universal, there is a sense in which it does not matter.  The importance of the recognition that they belong together somehow lies in the stress that this lays upon the post-exilic origin and perspective of Chr.  The fact that Chr was written for the restoration community (as the returned exiles are often called) is an important factor in the interpretation of the book.   (J. G. McConville, The Daily Study Bible Series, 1 & 2 Chronicles, 1)
• Because of the Chronicler’s interest in the Temple, its worship and especially its music, it has been inferred, and probably correctly, that he was a Levite, a member of one of the Temple choirs.  (Robert C. Dentan, The Layman’s Bible Commentary, 1Kings-2 Chronicles, 12-13)

 

Audience:  

• We should in these chapters notice two characteristics of the way he writes history.  One is that he is writing for people who are in any case very history-conscious, and who have been brought up to be keenly aware of their nation’s past and well versed in the contents of their scriptures.  In other words (and this is something we shall need to recall frequently), his first readers, as I said earlier, know the facts already.  We may even suppose them to possess histories like Samuel and Kings, and to be able therefore to check what this new book says both by reference to the older ones and by memory.  The Chronicler is not informing them of things they do not know; he is interpreting for them and applying to them things they do know.  He is, in a word, preaching.  (Michael Wilcock, The Message of Chronicles, 25)
• There is still a nation of Israel, but it comprises only a few of the twelve tribes and only remnants of any of them.  There is still a land of Canaan, but we occupy only a small portion of it.  There is still a house of David, but its royal glory has long departed.  There is still a temple in Jerusalem, but it is a second-rate thing, far inferior to the one it replaces.  Even if the people of God are not persecuted, they are (which is worse) ignored.  They are a feeble minority in a world which in practice bears no relation to the world of their Bible.  For them the future is unknown, and the past is meaningless.  So these fourth-century Israelites might complain.

It is precisely to this situation that the Chronicler addresses himself.  It is, in modern jargon, an identity crisis.  The people of God need to know what they are and what they are meant to be, in a society which, if it interests itself in them at all, will want only to use them for its own worldly ends.  And when they question what they, the people of God, are, the Chronicler’s answer is to remind them of what they have been.  (Michael Wilcock, The Message of Chronicles, 23-24)

• The exiles under Assyria and Babylonia are over for the minority of Hebrews who have returned, but Judah remains a struggling and insignificant political and cultural “backwater” under Persian domination.  National and political life are overshadowed by the pagan “superpowers” of Persia and Greece.  The religion of the Jews is challenged by the rival temple cult of the Samaritans on Mount Gerizim, the great cult of Ahura Mazda among the Persians, and the Greek mystery religions.  It is against this backdrop that the Chronicler offers a “theology of hope” to postexilic Judah, couched in the annals of earlier Israelite history.  He seeks to assure the Jewish community of faith that the present distress will soon pass and give way to God’s restoration of Israel, according to the theocratic ideal expressed in Chronicles.  (Andrew E. Hill, The NIV Application Commentary: 1 & 2 Chronicles, 37)

 

Date of Composition:

• The Chronicles, along with Ezra-Nehemiah, are probably the latest books of the OT in respect to the date of composition.  The time of writing for the Chronicles is usually assigned to the postexilic period of Hebrew history.  Dates range anywhere from the reforms of the prophets Haggai and Zechariah (ca. 515 B.C.) To well into the Greek period (sometime between 300 and 160 B.C.).  (Andrew E. Hill, The NIV Application Commentary: 1 & 2 Chronicles, 41)

 

Purpose of Chronicles:

• The Chronicler originally wrote his history to direct the restoration of the Kingdom during the early post-exilic period.  The people who had returned from exile faced many challenges.  Although the prophets had predicated that return to the land would be a time of grand blessings (e.g. Am 9:11-15; Jl 3:18-21; Ez 34:26), the restoration had not brought about the blessings for which Israel hoped.  Instead, the returnees endured discouraging economic hardship, foreign opposition, and domestic conflicts.  The Chronicler wrote his history to offer guidance to this struggling community.  (Richard L. Pratt, 1 & 2 Chronicles, A Mentor Commentary, 13)

 

Historical Perspective:

• The Deuteronomic historians had a definite point of view, but were scrupulous in reproducing their sources; the Chronicler was much less precise in his use of the sources.  He was more concerned that his story should be religiously edifying than that it be merely historically accurate.  Since his principal sources were our own books of Samuel and Kings, we can easily see, by comparison, how he deals with them.  He omits stories that he considers discreditable to his characters, for instance, the David and Bathsheba episode and the whole account of Absalom’s rebellion against his father; he leaves out the entire history of the northern kingdom of Israel, since it was irrelevant to his purpose and he considered Israel a wicked and apostate kingdom; he makes his story more interesting and gives to it a more directly religious tone by introducing miraculous incidents where there are none in the original (compare, for example, 1 Ki 8:54-56 with 2 Chr 7:1-3).  (Robert C. Dentan, The Layman’s Bible Commentary, 1Kings-2 Chronicles, 12)
• “The Chronicler is not at all a writer of history in our sense of the term; he does not aim to relate what took place but what serves to edify” (I. Benzinger, Die Bücher der Chronik, 59).  Or again: “It is anachronistic to expect standards of historical accuracy such as are nowadays regarded as unusual” (R. J. Coggins, 1 & 2^nd Books of Chronicles, 5).  The truth is that there is no such thing (in the writing of history or anywhere else) as unprejudiced study, an approach without presuppositions, an objective search for “the facts” which does not select some data and reject others.  There is, in brief, no such thing as an open mind.  The very judgment that the Bible historians’ standards were inferior to ours itself arises from a set of presuppositions.  (Michael Wilcock, The Message of Chronicles, 17)
• Even a casual reading of the Chronicles reveals that the writer exercised considerable freedom in selecting, arranging, and modifying the extensive source material from which he composed his history.  This condition has led many biblical scholars to disparage the integrity and historical reliability of the Chronicler’s record.  In fact, the accuracy of the book of Chronicles has been called into question more than any other book of the OT except Genesis.  (Andrew E. Hill, The NIV Application Commentary: 1 & 2 Chronicles, 28)
• Because of the particular standpoint from which Chronicles was compiled, as well as the association of this work in the Greek and other versions with the historical books of Samuel and Kings, it has become customary for liberal scholars generally to adopt a rather low view of the nature and historical trustworthiness of the books of Chronicles.  Part of the misapprehension concerning these records has arisen because of a failure to realize that the overriding concern of the compiler was with a metaphysic of history rather than with a scrupulous cataloging of chronological sequences.  As a result of this standpoint, the work was formulated along very different lines from those adopted by most modern historians.  (R. K. Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament, 1157-58)

 

 

The Chronicles Genealogy:

• We are tempted to pass over these ancient lists and genealogies as irrelevant, but such a stance toward these chapters does not match the Chronicler’s outlook.  He began his history with these materials to answer critical questions raised by the experience of post-exilic Israel.  Who are the people of God?  What privileges and responsibilities do they have?  The Chronicler’s answers to these questions revealed many important themes which characterize his entire history.  (Richard L. Pratt, 1 & 2 Chronicles, A Mentor Commentary, 62)
• An essential purpose of the extensive genealogies is to establish that the returned exiles are the legitimate continuation of God’s elect people.  The writer works this out by reporting the election of Israel from all peoples (1 Chr 1:2-2:2), the arrangement of the tribes of Israel (1 Chr 2:3-9:1), and the representation of the tribes that returned from Babylon (1 Chr 9:16-34).  (Luder Whitlock, Jr., New Geneva Study Bible, NKJV, 562)
• Biblical scholars have long noted that the genealogies of the prologue to Chronicles (1 Chr 1-9) are a mini-commentary of sorts on the book of Genesis.  (Andrew E. Hill, The NIV Application Commentary: 1 & 2 Chronicles, 59)
• It is evident the genealogies of 1 Chronicles 1-9 serve multiple purposes, especially in legitimizing the authority of Levitical priesthood as the rightful successors to the royal authority of Davidic kingship and in asserting the continuity of the Hebrew people through the national distress of the Babylonian exile.  (Andrew E. Hill, The NIV Application Commentary: 1 & 2 Chronicles, 61)
• The paragraph about Naphtali (7:13) is remarkable only for its brevity, in contrast to the great length of Levi’s section (6:1-81).  It brings us to the final peculiarity of this whole survey of the branches of Israel.  We have been shown eleven tribes.  Where is the twelfth?  It may occur to us that Dan seems to be missing.  Some commentators do suggest that in 7:12, another unintelligible verse (Shuppim and Huppim again bringing confusion, as in 7:15!), there was a mention of him which as some stage dropped out: “Son of Dan; Hushim, a single son.”  That would make up twelve tribes–and then leave us with yet one more complication: we have still had no mention of Zebulun!   (Michael Wilcock, The Message of Chronicles, 39)

 

1 Chronicles 2:1-9:

 

• The chronicler manages to pack a lot of scandal into the list to which David is connected.  He mentions quite a few instances in which David’s ancestors married outside the pure lineage.  There are Judah’s five sons, three from a Canaanite wife and two from his Canaanite daughter-in-law, Tamar.  Of these latter two, Zerah became the ancestor of the notorious Achar (Achan), who caused trouble at the conquest of Canaan (Josh 7), while Perez’s line eventually picks up Ruth, the Moabitess.  Also, David’s own sister Abigail married an Ishmaelite.  David was the descendant of Judah by way of Perez, Hezron, Ram, Boaz, and Jesse, among others.  (Broadman & Holman Publishers, Shepherd’s Notes, 1, 2 Chronicles, 7)
• The Chronicler shifted his name from “Achan” (Jo 7:1) to Achar for a word play.  The name Achar sounds like the Hebrew word meaning trouble (2:7).  Achar broke the ban and died under divine judgment (2:7; see Josh 7:24-26).  In fact, the Chronicler highlighted Achar’s actions by using one of his typical terms for describing serious rebellion against God: Achar was unfaithful.  (Richard L. Pratt, 1 & 2 Chronicles, A Mentor Commentary, 70)
• Here again our author presupposes knowledge of the narrative, in Josh 6 and 7.  If you are not familiar with it, look it up.  There “Achar” is called Achan; here his name is slightly changed to give clearer expression to the play on words in Josh 7:24-26.  There “the Valley of Achor” means Trouble Valley, commemorating Achan as the cause of trouble for Israel.  Achan deliberately disobeyed a divine mandate relating to the occupation of Jericho and kept spoils for himself, some of which should have been destroyed and others handed over to the sacred coffers.  The selfish and sinful act contaminated the entire community and laid it under a divine curse.  It was a dire situation: the existence of the people was threatened–almost as soon as they had set foot inside the promised land.  Achan would have brought total disaster on them, had not God accepted a way of decontaminating Israel.  Their early life in the land was marred by this failure.  It was a sad beginning, curiously like the story of Ananias and Sapphira’s greed in Acts 5.  Human nature soon raises its ugly head and radically disrupts a new work of God, if it is not dealt with quickly.  If 2:3, 4 pointed to God’s grace, this incident presents a serious warning.  (Leslie Allen, Mastering the OT, 1, 2 Chronicles, 47)
• In Hebrew law this was incest, for the relationship was within the forbidden degrees of Lv 18:15.  The Chronicler and his readers knew the ruling of Lv 20:12, the death sentence for both parties.  This makes his placing the cases of verses 3 and 4 together very striking: the wicked son lost his life, while the wicked father and wife not only had their lives spared but won a role in the line that led to David.  Matthew picked up the message from the Chronicler’s genealogy and passed it on in his own: Tamar (and Bathsheba too) was a link in the chain of human lives that led eventually to Jesus (Mt 1:3).  There is a mysterious grace at work here, which the Chronicler underlines by his dramatic contrast.  Human failure is woven into the ongoing purpose of God.  It is one illustration among so many of that side of God’s character revealed in the OT as “abounding in mercy” (Ps 103:8: read on to v. 14) and reaffirmed in the New in terms of “the riches of His grace” (Eph 1:7; 2:7).  I sense that the Chronicler passed this point in his genealogy with a sigh of relief and a prayerful murmur of gratitude to God.  (Leslie Allen, Mastering the OT, 1, 2 Chronicles, 46-47)

 

The question to be answered is . . .  Why is Pastor Keith making us study Chronicles for the next year?

 

Answer:  Because our nation, our state, our county, our city, our church, our families and our individual lives are in desperate need of reformation.  Chronicles points the way to return to the glory that God intended for us.

 

People tend to think of “glory” in terms of brightness, but it is certainly more than that.  It is utter wholeness, completeness.  (Bruce B. Barton, Life Application Bible Commentary 1 & 2 Corinthians, p. 316)

 

The Word for the Day is . . . Reform

 

What does the Chronicler say is the way back to Israel’s former glory?:                                    

 

 

I.  Necessity of godly Davidic Kingship:

 

Just as in the other historical books of the Bible, it is taken for granted that when the king is faithful and obedient, the people will also trust and obey.  The chronicler goes to great pains to show the importance of godly leadership.  Without a leader the people will perish.  David and his house are the channel through which God’s appointed leader is to come.  (John Sailhamer, Everyman’s Bible Commentary: 1 & 2 Chronicles, 11)

 

With such a positive presentation of David’s reign, it is not surprising that the Chronicler often described times of celebration in David’s kingdom (see 12:40; 13:8; 15:16, 25, 29; 16:23-33; 29:9-25).  In fact, the end of each major section of the king’s reign includes eating in celebration (12:40; 16:3; 29:22).  These records of joy were designed to inspire his post-exilic readers to follow the example of David so that they might have similar blessings to his time.  (Richard L. Pratt, 1 & 2 Chronicles, A Mentor Commentary, 102)

 

What purpose does he have in drawing the line between Adam and the house of David?

One of the overarching themes of 1 and 2 Chronicles is that the Davidic kingship is to be the instrument of God’s promised salvation and blessing.  The writer seems especially concerned to show that this salvation and blessing is not just for God’s people, Israel, but also for all mankind.  It is “to the Jew first and also to the Greek” (Rom 1:16).  (John Sailhamer, Everyman’s Bible Commentary: 1 & 2 Chronicles, 20)

 

The fact that he moves beyond David in this beginning genealogy, and in 3:19-24 extends the list of the house of David even into the post-exilic period, suggests that there is still more that can be said about the purpose of this genealogy.  After the Exile, the kingdom of David is gone.  Kingship lies not in the hand of a descendant of David, but in the hand of Cyrus, the ruler of the Persian Empire.  However, the hope that God will fulfill His promise of blessing does not rest on the present political circumstances, but on the faithfulness of God.  The fact that the Davidic house still exists in the writer’s own day is a testimony to God’s faithfulness.  The house of David may be a “fallen booth,” but God is faithful and will one day “raise up its ruins, and rebuild it as in the days of old” (Amos 9:11).  (John Sailhamer, Everyman’s Bible Commentary: 1 & 2 Chronicles, 21-22)

 

In the north, the hereditary principle never holds good for more than five generations in a row; crown and scepter are for those who can take them.  In the south, it persists almost throughout; crown and scepter are for those to whom God gives them–David and his descendants are kings, not through their merit, but through God’s grace.  And by many examples besides this one the Chronicler shows how unfailing is God’s hesed, his constant mercy and steadfast love.  Even those dull name-lists are all about the binding together of the generations in the one gracious plan of the covenant-keeping God.  (Michael Wilcock, The Message of Chronicles, 16)

 

The Chronicler relied on many of David and Solomon’s arrangements as standards to be observed by his readers.  He often spoke of conformity to Moses and David together (1 Chr 15:15; 22:13; 2 Chr 8:13-14; 23:18; 33:7-8; 35:4, 6).  On a number of occasions the Chronicler upheld specific practices established by David and Solomon.  For the most part, these references concerned practices of worship (1 Chr 28:19; 2 Chr 8:14; 23:18; 29:25, 27; 34:2; 35:4, 15).  At times, however, more general patterns are in view, especially when various kings are compared to David (2 Chr 17:3; 28:1; 29:2; 34:2).  (Richard L. Pratt, 1 & 2 Chronicles, A Mentor Commentary, 34)

 

The several generations of Jews from the time of Haggai and Zerubbabel to the Chronicler had been expecting the reinstatement of Davidic kingship and the restoration of national Israel (cf. Hag 2:20-22).  Clearly this is what Jeremiah and Ezekiel predicted after the return from Babylonian captivity (cf. Jer 33:15-22; Ezek 34:20-25).  Later, the prophets Zechariah and Malachi essentially told their constituencies to “hang in there,” for God would soon inaugurate the new Davidic kingdom and restore the fortunes of Israel (i.e. “the day is coming”; cf. Zech 12:10; 13:1; Mal 3:1; 4:1).  But by the time of Ezra and Nehemiah, there is no longer any mention of a Davidic king or a restored Hebrew nation.  The postexilic community has resigned itself to hierocratic or priestly rule as well as economic and political subordination in the vast Persian Empire.

Whether verbalized or not, the Chronicler’s audience suspects that God’s word has failed.  (Andrew E. Hill, The NIV Application Commentary: 1 & 2 Chronicles, 67-68)

 

The family of David is the feature attraction of Judah’s genealogy.  The Chronicler’s emphasis on David stems from his knowledge of prophetic statements about the unbreakable covenant God made with David and the reestablishment of Davidic kingship in Israel (cf. Jer 33:19-22).  He then offers this hope to his audience through the repetition of the word of the Lord to Nathan announcing the Davidic covenant (1 Chr 17:4-14, esp. vv. 10-14; cf. 2 Sam 7:4-16).  (Andrew E. Hill, The NIV Application Commentary: 1 & 2 Chronicles, 83)

 

Despite the delay of nearly two centuries, the Chronicler is hopeful that kingship will be restored in postexilic Judah.  That hope is not utopian wishful thinking or sentimental daydreaming but confidence in the Word of God that promised a revived Davidic monarchy (cf. Jer 33:15; Amos 9:11).  The certainty of the Chronicler’s conviction that God will make good that promise spoken through the prophets informs the structure of the genealogical prologue.  (Andrew E. Hill, The NIV Application Commentary: 1 & 2 Chronicles, 171)

 

The full restoration of the kingdom could not take place apart from the Davidic king and the Jerusalem temple.  As the Lord said to David, “I will set up your seed after you, who will be of your sons; and I will establish his kingdom.  He shall build Me a house, and I will establish his throne forever” (1 Chr 17:11, 12).  (Luder Whitlock, Jr., New Geneva Study Bible, NKJV, 561)

 

II.  Necessity of proper temple worship:

 

If there was one outstanding trait of a good Davidic king, it was his zeal for the Temple of the Lord.  Through the Temple, God was present with His people.  (John Sailhamer, Everyman’s Bible Commentary: 1 & 2 Chronicles, 12)

 

Chronicles stresses that God’s Name was the way of access to divine power.  This concept appears no less than 43 times (1 Chr 13:6; 16:2, 8, 10, 29, 35; 21:19; 22:7-8, 10, 19; 23:13; 28:3; 29:13, 16; 2 Chr 2:1, 4; 6:5-10, 20, 24, 26, 32-28; 7:14, 16, 20; 12:13; 14:11; 18:15; 20:8-9; 33:4, 7, 18; 36:13).  The Chronicler believed that God himself is transcendent and unapproachable in his heavenly dwelling (2 Chr 6:18).  As a result, God had to condescend to Israel by putting his Name in the temple (2 Chr 6:20).  The presence of God’s Name meant that God’s “eyes” and “heart” were in the temple (2 Chr 7:16).

Consequently, the Name of God was the source of power upon which God’s people called when they were in trouble (1 Chr 16:35; 2 Chr 6;24, 26; 14:11).  His Name was the object of their praise for displays of his power (1 Chr 16:8, 10, 29; 29:13).  The Name was also the authorizing power behind speeches on God’s behalf (1 Chr 16:2; 21:19; 23:13; 2 Chr 33:18).  Solemn oaths were to be taken in the Name of God for the same reason (2 Chr 18:15; 36:13).  (Richard L. Pratt, 1 & 2 Chronicles, A Mentor Commentary, 30)

 

God was to dwell among His people by being present with them in the Temple.  His presence was a gift of grace and Israel was always to treat God as holy.  (John Sailhamer, Everyman’s Bible Commentary: 1 & 2 Chronicles, 12)

 

Access to God and the hope of his blessing was available only for those who called on God’s Name.  This belief necessitated the reconstruction and full service of the temple which was the place of God’s Name.  (Richard L. Pratt, 1 & 2 Chronicles, A Mentor Commentary, 30)

 

Raymond Dillard has described Chronicles as a “tract,” a religious pamphlet designed to renew Israel’s hope in God and restore right worship of him.  (Andrew E. Hill, The NIV Application Commentary: 1 & 2 Chronicles, 33)

 

The priest, then, would be the one who stands before God to minister.  (Merrill C. Tenney, The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible: Vol. Four, p. 853)

 

In Israel, the priesthood represented the nation’s relationship with God.  The original intention in the Mosaic covenant was for the entire nation to be a kingdom of priests (Ex 19:6; cf. Lev 11:44ff.; Num 15:40).  The covenant of God was mediated through the priesthood.  In Biblical theology the concepts of priesthood and covenant are closely related.  Because of the covenant at Sinai, Israel was meant to be “a kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Ex 19:5, 6; cf. Is 61:6).  God’s holy character was to be reflected in the life of Israel (Lev 11:44ff.; Num 15:40).  The fact that God vested priestly functions in one tribe did not release the rest of the nation from their original obligation.  (Merrill C. Tenney, The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible: Vol. Four, p. 854)

 

III.  Necessity of obedience to the Law of God:  

 

For the chronicler, nothing was as important as trust and obedience; nothing was so hazardous as doubt and rebellion.  (John Sailhamer, Everyman’s Bible Commentary: 1 & 2 Chronicles, 12)

 

According to the covenant, trust would bring blessing, but disobedience would bring exile (Dt 28).

The chronicler’s emphasis on this last point runs parallel to the interest of his contemporary Daniel: “As it is written in the law of Moses, all this calamity has come on us; yet we have not sought the favor of the LORD our God by turning from our iniquity and giving attention to Thy truth.  Therefore, the LORD has kept the calamity in store and brought it on us; for the LORD our God is righteous with respect to all His deeds which He has done, but we have not obeyed His voice” (Dan 9:13-14).  (John Sailhamer, Everyman’s Bible Commentary: 1 & 2 Chronicles, 24)

 

As the Chronicler attached judgment and salvation to the response of Israel towards the prophetic word, so the NT depicts the destiny of individuals as contingent upon obedience to the Word of God.  Paul warns against treating prophecy with “contempt” (1 Thes 5:20).  Eternal life is contingent upon one’s response to the Word of God (Jn 5:24).  Those who hear and receive the word of God are included “in Christ” (Eph 1:13).  As with Israel, the Church is promised blessings if it heeds the prophetic word, but curses come to anyone who disregards or changes the Word of God (Rv 22:18, 19).  (Richard L. Pratt, 1 & 2 Chronicles, A Mentor Commentary, 36)

 

The centrality of the Word of God has always been the hallmark of godly leadership.  (John Sailhamer, Everyman’s Bible Commentary: 1 & 2 Chronicles, 31)

 

The new community needed to be linked with the past.  They needed to know the right lines on which to re-establish patterns of worship.  And, if history was not to repeat itself, they needed most of all to be reminded of the greatest lesson their history had to teach: that prosperity and well-being depend absolutely on faithfulness to God.  Idolatry and neglect of God’s law always has and always will result in judgment and disaster.  (David Alexander, Eerdmans’ Handbook to the Bible, 286)

 

The king and the temple could not in themselves secure God’s blessing for Israel; there had to be obedience to the Mosaic law and to prophetic and priestly instruction.  The Lord blessed those who upheld the purity of temple worship and relied on Him alone (1 Chr 5:20; 2 Chr 13:18; 14:7; 32:20, 21).  When the people or the kings turned to sin, an immediate retribution of illness and military defeat often followed (1 Chr 10; 2 Chr 13:1-16; 16:12; 28:1-5; 33:1-11).  Even so, the people could be restored to blessing by seeking God in repentance and prayer (1 Chr 21:1-22:1; 2 Chr 7:13-15; 12:1-12; 33:10-13).  The Chronicler shows that the full restoration of God’s people would come only as they lived in fidelity to the Lord.  Azariah says it well: “If you seek Him, He will be found by you; but if you forsake Him, He will forsake you” (2 Chr 15:2).  (Luder Whitlock, Jr., New Geneva Study Bible, NKJV, 561)

 

IV.  All Israel is to be a part of the restoration

 

Even so, the complete list of Jacob’s sons in 2:1-2 shows that these chapters express the Chronicler’s insistence that all the tribes be counted among the people of God.  Earlier prophets had already indicated that the restoration after exile would involve all twelve tribes (see Isa 9:1-7; 11:12; 27:6, 12-13; 43:1-7; 44:1-5, 21-28; 49:5-7, 14-21; 59:20; 65:9; 66:20; Ezek 34:23-24; 37; 40-48; Hos 1:11; 3:4-5; Amos 9:11-15; Mic 2:12-13; 4:6-8; 5:1-5a).  The Chronicler also looked for a reunification of all Israel.  From his point of view, the post-exilic restoration would remain incomplete until representatives of all the tribes were gathered in the promised land.  (Richard L. Pratt, 1 & 2 Chronicles, A Mentor Commentary, 66)

 

These uneven distributions suggest that the Chronicler honored Judah, Levi, and Benjamin more than the other tribes.  What did these three tribes have in common that warranted this honored status?  Throughout history a great number of Judahites, Benjamites, and Levites remained committed to the Davidic king and the Jerusalem temple.  Kingship and temple were the two essential institutions in the Chronicler’s ideal for restored Israel.  Judah, Levi, and Benjamin probably held extraordinary positions in the Chronicler’s view because of their past loyalties to these institutions.  As such, these tribes also played vital roles in the restoration efforts of post-exilic Israel.  (Richard L. Pratt, 1 & 2 Chronicles, A Mentor Commentary, 66-67)

 

The emphasis on “all Israel” (the phrase occurs 40 times in the Chronicles) suggests the writer has the entire nation in mind, including the political leadership, the religious leadership, and the general populace.  The theme of “all Israel” in the Chronicler’s history also suggests an attempt to heal wounds of schism among the Hebrew tribes as a result of the division caused by the competing monarchies of Israel and Judah.  The twin themes of the Davidic covenant and temple worship serve to remind the Israelites that their unity is assured by divine promise and demonstrated in their common worship of Yahweh, the God of the covenant.  (Andrew E. Hill, The NIV Application Commentary: 1 & 2 Chronicles, 49-50)

 

God never hesitates or wearies of “returning” to his people when they “return” to him–and he is always careful to leave in his wake the blessing of new beginning (Zech 1:3; Mal 3:7; cf. Hos 6:1-2).  (Andrew E. Hill, The NIV Application Commentary: 1 & 2 Chronicles, 186)

 

Throughout his history the writer identifies the people who should be counted as heirs of God’s covenant promises.  The prominence of this theme appears in his frequent use of the expression “all Israel” (1 Chr 11:1; 2 Chr 10:1; 29:24).  On the one hand, the author considered those who had been released from Babylonian exile to be the people of God.  Representatives of Judah, Benjamin, Ephraim, and Manasseh, who had returned to the land were the chosen people.  On the other hand, the author considered the restoration of Israel to be incomplete as long as any of the tribes remained outside the land, separated from the Davidic king and the Jerusalem temple.  As a result, the Chronicler is careful to include both the northern and southern tribes in his genealogies (2:3-9:1), to present the picture of the united monarchy under David and Solomon extending to all the people, and to depict the reunification of the northern and southern kingdoms in the days of Hezekiah.  The returned exiles were the remnant of God’s people, but they looked forward to the restoration of all the people of God.  As Hezekiah put it, “For if you return to the LORD, your brethren and your children will be treated with compassion by those who lead them captive, so that they may come back to this land; for the LORD your God is gracious and merciful (2 Chr 30:9).  (Luder Whitlock, Jr., New Geneva Study Bible, NKJV, 561)

 

V.  Repentance and humility as the key to restoration

 

The Chronicler’s repeated emphasis on this theme inspired his post-exilic readers to humility.  They too had a propensity to fall into rebellion against God.  They had opportunities to receive God’s warning against their rebellion.  They were responsible to surrender themselves to God.  Moreover, only humility could restore them to God’s favor and bring a greater experience of his blessing.  (Richard L. Pratt, 1 & 2 Chronicles, A Mentor Commentary, 40)

 

The Chronicler uses the history of the monarchy as the basis for a message of repentance and salvation to his contemporaries.  It will be immediately observed that the reigns of David and Solomon occupy a disproportionate amount of space in the whole work (1 Chr 11-2 Chr 9).  This is because he wishes to set them up as models for imitation by their successors, in contrast to the negative model of Saul (1 Chr 10).  Thus, while faithfulness and obedience to the Lord bring blessing, in the form of security in the land, ascendancy over other nations, and wealth, as typified by David and Solomon, disobedience, like that of Saul, brings their opposites.  This thesis is then elaborated throughout the history of Judah, from Solomon’s immediate successor Rehoboam, down to the Babylonian exile.   (J. G. McConville, The Daily Study Bible Series, 1 & 2 Chronicles, 4)

                                                               

CONCLUSION/APPLICATION: What can we learn from Chronicles is our way back to the glory that God envisioned for us before the Fall?:                   

 

There would one day come forth the last and greatest fulfillment of the pattern, in a way the Chronicler could never have imagined.  Or could he?  Did he perhaps understand that neither the priest-king-shaped gap, nor the succession of men of Israel who filled it, could ever in the end achieve the real union of God with his people, unless the truth which they signified were one day to become incarnate Fact?  Did he, like Abraham, look “into the future, far as human eye could see,” and there see the day of Christ, and rejoice?  For king and priest were, of course, to merge in the single figure of our Lord Jesus Christ, whose eternal priesthood and kingship would “bring in everlasting righteousness.”  Realized or unrealized before the time, he is in fact the one who actually makes all his people, whether “BC” or “AD”, truly the people of God.  It is he who fulfills the Chronicler’s great vision: “One church, one faith, one Lord.”  (Michael Wilcock, The Message of Chronicles, 50)

 

As the NT teaches, the Chronicler’s hopes were realized in Christ.  Christ brings to fulfillment and exceeds all of the Chronicler’s desires for God’s people.  (Richard L. Pratt, 1 & 2 Chronicles, A Mentor Commentary, 13)

 

A-  There continues to be the necessity of a godly Davidic Kingship – Consummated in Jesus the Son of David. (see: Lk 19:38; Mt 1:1; 21:9; 22:42-46; 27:11; Mk 12:35; Lk 2:11; 20:41; Jn 7:42; 2 Tm 2:8; Heb 12:1-2)

 

The witness of the NT is that Jesus Christ is Lord and King (Rom 10:9; 14:8f.; Phil 2:6-11).  He is the King of the Jews (Mt 2:2; 21:5; 27:11; Lk 23:2; Jn 12:13; Acts 17:7).  The Lord will give Him the throne of David (Lk 1:32), of whom He is the seed (Jn 7:43; Rom 1:3; 2 Tm 2:8), the root and offspring (Rv 5:5).  He was witnessed to as the son of David (Mt 1:1), especially by those who implored His help (Mt 9:27; 15:22; 20:30ff.; Mk 10:47f.; Lk 18:38), and He was finally acclaimed as such by the multitude (Mt 12:23; 21:9, 15).  (Geoffrey W. Bromiley, The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Volume Three: K-P, p. 304)

 

David, indeed, does not propose a similitude framed by himself; but declares the reason for which the kingdom of Christ was divinely ordained, and even confirmed with an oath; and it is not to be doubted that the same truth had previously been traditionally handed down by the fathers.  The sum of the whole is, that Christ would thus be the king next to God, and also that he should be anointed priest, and that for ever; which it is very useful for us to know, in order that we may learn that the royal power of Christ is combined with the office of priest.  The same Person, therefore, who was constituted the only and eternal Priest, in order that he might reconcile us to God, and who, having made expiation, might intercede for us, is also a King of infinite power to secure our salvation, and to protect us by his guardian care.  (John Calvin, Commentaries on The First Book of Moses called Genesis, p. 389)

               

B-  There continues to be the necessity for proper temple worship – Fulfilled through Jesus our Great High Priest and sufficient sacrifice. (see: 1 Cor 5:7; Eph 5:2; Heb chps. 5-10; especially 9:26-28; 10:5, 10; 1 Pt 2:5)

 

Christ claimed that his own blood would seal and ratify this greater covenant (Lk 22:20; 1 Cor 11:25; Heb 7:22).  This New Covenant would be accomplished by his mediating work on the cross and by his continuing intercession (Heb 8:6; 9:15).  As a result, those who trust in Christ are participants and beneficiaries of covenant blessings: eternal life (Jn 3:16; 10:28), assurance (1 Tm 3:13), protection (Jn 17:11), and abundant life (Rom 5:17).  Christians are given the responsibility of being “ministers of a new covenant” (2 Cor 3:6) and are obligated to covenant fidelity and renewal (Rom 3:31).  (Richard L. Pratt, 1 & 2 Chronicles, A Mentor Commentary, 33)

 

Whereas the earthly high priest could only enter the Holy of Holies once a year and with great trepidation, Jesus lives in the heavenly Holy of Holies.  There he perpetually prays for us.  His whole being is one unceasing intercession for more life, for more blessing, for more holiness, for more love.  (R. Kent Hughes, Preaching the Word: Genesis, p. 217)

 

A priest is appointed to act on behalf of men in relation to God (Heb 5:1).  His ultimate purpose is to bring men to God (cf. 7:25) and thereby bring them to perfection, or completion (10:14; cf. 2:10; 9:9; 10:1; 11:40; 12:23).  The priest does not take this prerogative upon himself; he must have divine appointment (5:4).  The way he brings men to God is by offering sacrifices for sins (5:1; 8:3; 9:7, 13).  The priest, too, is a man and a sinner; therefore he must offer up sacrifices for himself as well (5:2, 3; 7:27; 9:7).  This turns out to be the basic limitation of the OT system.  An imperfect priest can only offer imperfect sacrifices (9:11-14; 10:1-4).  Therefore, both the covenant on which his priesthood is based (8:6ff.) And the Holy Place in which it is performed (9:11) are imperfect.  Finally, the net result is imperfect.  The old system “can never…make perfect those who draw near” (10:1).

Thus priests, because of their sinfulness, are subject to death; they come and go (7:23).  Their sacrifices are repeated daily and annually; but man is not perfected (9:9, 10).  Therefore, the old is only a type (a shadow) of the real who was to come (9:23, 24; 10:1).  In this frame of reference the author views the genuine, but sinless, humanity of Christ in light of His exaltation, and in an argument at once deeply perceptive and richly varied sees Him as both the ultimate priest and the end of the priestly system.

He is the ultimate priest because by His death He ratified a new covenant (9:15-22), toward which the OT itself had looked (8:8-13).  Moreover, God had promised that the Messianic king would also be “a priest for ever, after the order of Melchizedek” (Ps 110:4).  Such a promise indicates the imperfection of the old Aaronic order (Heb 7:11-14).  It is Jesus who perfectly “fulfills” this promise.  (Merrill C. Tenney, The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible: Vol. Four, p. 851)

 

Furthermore, Jesus is a priest “for ever” in contrast to the Aaronic priests, who “were prevented by death from continuing in office” (7:23).  This is the author’s main interest in Jesus’ humanity.  Other priests could not continue because of sin; but Jesus, though “made like his brethren in every respect” (2:17), was sinless; therefore He is a perfect and eternal high priest (4:15; 5:7-10; 7:23-28; 9:14).  This genuine humanity also makes Him a perfect priest in that He can fully “sympathize with our weaknesses” (4:15; cf. 2:14-18).

Jesus is the ultimate priest also because He offers the perfect sacrifice–Himself.  The clearest evidence that the blood of goats and calves was inadequate was that such offerings were continually repeated (10:1-4).  By offering Himself, Jesus offered a perfect sacrifice “once for all,” one that need not be repeated (9:23-28).  Furthermore, He offered it in the eternal Holy Place, having entered “into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf” (9:24).  (Merrill C. Tenney, The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible: Vol. Four, 851)

 

From Sinai on, the Levitical priesthood, consecrated to the service of God, had the responsibility of standing between God and man (Nu 1:47-53; 3:21-27; Ex 28:1).  In this way they symbolically foreshadowed the coming of One who would effectively fulfill all their functions as the great High Priest (Heb 8-10).

In His incarnation Christ fulfilled totally the work of the priest; but as the writer of Hebrews points out (ch. 10), He did so by the offering not of an animal but of Himself as the atoning sacrifice.  By both His active and His passive obedience, in all His perfection, as the god-man He bore the penalty of sin for His people.  In this way He fulfilled the Covenant of Grace on behalf of man, providing a way of entry for man into the presence of God.  And by virtue of this sacrifice He makes continual intercession for His people that they may, despite all their sins and transgressions, ever have free access to the throne of the Majesty on high (Heb 7:24).  (Geoffrey W. Bromiley, The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: Vol. One, 654)

 

The latest of the NT writings, those of the apostle John, indicate that under the teaching of the Spirit the Church had by the end of the apostolic age come to see with great clarity the nature of Christ’s priestly work.  This theme underlies his Gospel, but appears most clearly in chs. 6; 8; 10; 14-16.  1 Jn 1-2 sets forth the same doctrine more didactically, while Revelation states it in pictorial terms (chs. 5; 12; 14; 19; 21; 22).  (Geoffrey W. Bromiley, The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: Vol. One, 655)

 

Yet one must also remember that Christ’s priestly work did not end with His resurrection.  He has once and for all time met the requirements of the law of God, paying the penalty for the sins of His people (Rom 8:1; Gal 3:27ff.; Col 1:20f.; 2:14f.; Heb 9:24ff.).  Therefore, by His very presence before God the Father He always intercedes on His people’s behalf (Heb 7:25).  As one reads His great high-priestly prayer in Jn 17, one can perhaps understand a little more clearly what this means.  Since Christians have an advocate before the throne of grace, they have no further need of human priests, intercessors, or sacrifices, for Christ continuously performs the work of a priest on their behalf (1 Jn 2:1ff.).  (Geoffrey W. Bromiley, The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: Vol. One, 655)

 

Throughout the history of the two kingdoms Yahweh continually sent prophets to Israel and Judah to rebuke the people for their sins and at the same time to point forward to the reestablishment of the kingdom, this time on a spiritual and universal basis under a descendant of David possessed of divine power and authority (Is 9:6ff.; 11; 40:9ff.; 60; Jer 23:5ff.; 31:22ff.; Hos 3; Zec 14:4ff.; Mic 5:2).  Against this background one must place the activity of John the Baptist, who came preaching the kingdom of God.  The central fact he set forth was that Yahweh had come to establish His kingdom (Mt 3:11f.), and this theme the angel declared in the annunciation to Mary (Lk 1:31f.), as did also Christ Himself when He commenced His ministry (Mk 1:15f.).  During Christ’s early ministry this continued to form the core of His preaching, but the disciples He gathered around when He pointed out to them that as priest He must die for men’s sins, they did not believe (Mt 16:21ff.), and eventually they attempted to make Him king (21:44ff.).  After His resurrection they still thought in the same terms (Acts 1:6f.).  They recognized Him as the covenant God of the OT who they believed would now reestablish literally David’s kingdom.  He explained, however, that His kingdom was not of this world (Jn 18:35FF.; Acts 1:6ff.).  (Geoffrey W. Bromiley, The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: Vol. One, 656)

 

After the Lord’s ascension the disciples gradually came to understand the spiritual nature of Christ’s kingship.  Through His Spirit, Christ led the apostolic Church to perceive it by bringing the Gentiles into the Church.  James at the Council of Jerusalem set forth this new understanding of the Kingdom explicitly (Acts 15:13ff.), and the apostolic writers followed his example.  The apostle Paul in various places speaks of Christ’s exaltation and kingship over all things for the Church (Eph 1:20ff.; Phil 2:9ff.; Col 2:13; 1 Tm 6:15) as a result of His having fulfilled His work as the Redeemer, the great High Priest.  The greatest statement comes, however, in Revelation, where Christ is pictured as “Lord of lords and King of kings” (Rv 17:14; 19:11f.).  By the end of the apostolic age the true nature of Christ’s kingship had been fully stated by the Church.  (Geoffrey W. Bromiley, The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: Vol. One, 656)

 

An understanding of sacrifice and offering in the OT is a prelude needed to grasp the significance of Christ’s supreme sacrifice and offering of Himself in the NT.  His sacrifice and offering was eternally efficacious for all mankind and brought an end to the official Levitical sacrificial institution of the OT.  Paradoxically, it accomplished everything that institution had pointed toward and striven for–reconciliation of humankind to God and the true worship of God from the heart, along with all which that entailed.  (Geoffrey W. Bromiley, The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: Vol. Four, 260-61)

 

Jesus’ attitude toward sacrifices was characteristic of His stance toward the OT law (cf. Mt 5:17-20; 17:24-27).  He affirmed the validity and legitimacy of the sacrificial cult.  Yet the newness of His message and person prepared one for discontinuity as well; His death and resurrection (although this is not explicitly stated by Jesus) would ultimately cancel the need for animal sacrifices.  The Synoptic Gospels make this evident in the story of the temple curtain being torn in two (Mk 15:38 par.).  With symbolism that is remarkably similar to Hebrews, the Synoptics indicate that access to God is now available on a new and permanent basis because of Jesus’ death.  (Geoffrey W. Bromiley, The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: Vol. Four, 274)

 

Paul does not explicitly use the word “sacrifice” (Gk. Thysia) or “offering” (prosphorά)much in describing Christ’s death (cf. Eph 5:2), but the concept extends beyond this specific terminology.  The atoning significance of Christ’s “blood” is clearly related to sacrifice (Rom 3:25; 5:9; 1 Cor 11:25; Eph 1:7; 2:13; Col 1:20).  Christ’s death is also described as a sin offering (perί hamartίas) in Rom 8:3; cf. Lev 5:6f., 11; and 9:2f. In the LXX).  Paul clearly implies that Christ’s death has replaced the OT sacrifices when he says “if justification were through the law, then Christ died to no purpose” (Gal 2:21).  And here “law” (nόmos) for Paul would include OT sacrifices.  If atonement and forgiveness were available through OT sacrifices, then it is obvious that Christ’s death would be completely unnecessary.  The same kind of argument appears in Gal 3:10-13.  Those who do not obey the law perfectly are under the curse of the law (3:10).  Now the OT presupposes that people will sin and provides through the cults a way of atonement and forgiveness.  But Paul sees only one way of being delivered from the curse of the law, viz., the redemption that Christ provided by becoming a curse for us (2 Cor 5:21).  The OT sacrifices did not actually remove the curse; only the death of Christ was sufficient to do that.  (Geoffrey W. Bromiley, The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: Vol. Four, p. 275)

 

In Jn 1:29 John says, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world” (cf. Also v. 36).  Scholars debate over whether John had the idea of a Passover sacrifice in mind or whether he was thinking of Isa 53:7, and perhaps he had both in mind.  He may have also been thinking of the ordinary sacrifices of lambs (cf. Lev 4:32; 5:6).  (For the idea that Jesus’ death is understood from the background of Isa 53, see Acts 8:32-35; 1 Pt 2:21-25).  In any case John is thinking of Jesus’ death in sacrificial terms since His death is atoning.  The universal significance of Christ’s death is also a Johannine theme; the sacrifice of the lamb removed the sins of the entire world.  Also the death of Jesus is the propitiation (hilasmόs) “for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world” (1 Jn 2:2).  The implication of these texts for our subject is clear.  If Jesus’ death atones for the sins of the entire world, then the OT sacrifices are now redundant and therefore superfluous.  John never says this explicitly, but his very lack of interest in the sacrificial system makes it evident.  Clearly Jesus’ death is the true sacrifice because His blood “cleanses us from all sin” (1 Jn 1:7).  Revelation also refers quite often to the slaying of the lamb (Rv 5:6, 12; 7:14; 12:11; 13:8), and the redemptive result of Christ’s blood (Rv 1:5; 5:9; 7;14; 12:11).  (Geoffrey W. Bromiley, The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: Vol. Four, 276)

 

In his epistles he expressed a highly developed and sophisticated interpretation of Christ’s crucifixion as an expiatory sacrifice (Rom 3:25; 5:9; also 1 Cor 10:16; Eph 1:7; 2:13; Col 1:20).  He identified the Messiah with the sin offering (Rom 8:3; 2 Cor 5:21) and the Passover Lamb (1 Cor 5:7).  He obviously expected his readers to be knowledgeable with regard to the OT ritual system.  The “pleasing odor” sacrifices, esp. the whole burnt offering, provided the basis for his plea “to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God” (Rom 12:1).  (Merrill C. Tenney, The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible: Vol. Five, 210)

 

C-  There continues to be the necessity of obedience to the Law of God – Now satisfied through Jesus who imputes His righteousness to us by grace through faith. (see: Rom 3:21–26; 5:17, 21; 10:4; 1 Cor 1:30; 2 Cor 5:21; Gal 2:21; Eph 2:8-10; Phil 1:11; 3:9, 18; 2 Pt 1:1; 1 Jn 2:1)

 

The great theologian Augustine commented that whereas the law is only “a step to glory,” the gospel is “the summit of glory.”  It is like the difference between the sun and the stars.  The stars have a degree of brightness, but when the sun comes out, its radiance fills the sky.  So it is with the gospel of Jesus Christ.  His glory, and the glory that we have in him, is everlasting.  (Philip Graham Ryken, Preaching the Word Exodus, 1076)

 

A lifestyle of obedience to the commands of God remains the litmus test of true spirituality (cf. 1 Jn 2:3; 5:3).  (Andrew E. Hill, The NIV Application Commentary: 1 & 2 Chronicles, 144)

 

D-  All Israel is to be a part of the restoration – Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. (see: Lk 3:6; 19:10; Jn 3:16; Acts 2:21; 4:12; 13:39;  Rom 3:21-30; 10:4-13; Ti 2:11; Heb 5:9)

 

We are waiting for the dawn of the coming age, when something even more glorious than what happened to Moses will happen to everyone who trusts in Jesus.  The shadows will flee, we will shine with the undimmed majesty of God, and our faces will radiate his glory with growing brightness for all eternity.  Then the promise of the ancient blessing will be fulfilled: “The LORD bless you and keep you; the LORD make his face shine upon you and be gracious to you; the LORD turn his face toward you and give you peace” (Num 6:24-26).  (Philip Graham Ryken, Preaching the Word Exodus, 1077)

 

The purpose of life is to seek God, in the words of Scripture and in the worship of the temple.  Only those who seek God can find God’s will and purpose for their lives, and living accordingly, experience blessing.  To ignore God’s word is to ignore God, and cut oneself off from blessing.  This idea is expressed by David to Solomon in David’s second farewell speech, in what could be called the “golden text” of Chronicles: “If you seek him, he will be found by you; but if you forsake him, he will abandon you forever” (1 Chr 28:9; see also 2 Chr 15:2).  (Steven S. Tuell, Interpretation: 1 & 2 Chronicles, 13)

 

The totality of God’s people comes into focus throughout John’s Revelation (see Rv 19:6, 7; 21:3, 24).  The Chronicler’s desire that “all Israel” constitute the restored Kingdom in his day will be fully realized when Christ returns.  (Richard L. Pratt, 1 & 2 Chronicles, A Mentor Commentary, 17)

 

The NT further reveals what it means to seek God.  Jesus commanded that his followers seek the Kingdom of God (Mt 6:33; Lk 12:31).  Paul explained that seeking God is unnatural for sinful man and impossible for him to accomplish (Rom 3:11).  Even so, the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit enables man to “seek to be justified in Christ” (Gal 2:17) with the full assurance that “he who seeks finds” (Mt 7:8; Lk 11:10).  The promise that God “rewards those who earnestly seek him” extends to the consummation of the Kingdom (Heb 11:6).  (Richard L. Pratt, 1 & 2 Chronicles, A Mentor Commentary, 42)

 

The book’s concept of the people of God becomes a reality in Christ.  Like the community of the restoration, those who follow Christ are the heirs of Israel’s promises (Gal 3:14, 29; 4:28; Eph 2:11-22; 3:6).  The church extends beyond Israel to include the Gentiles (Lk 2:32; Acts 9:15; 11:1, 18), and in the end all of God’s elect “the Israel of God” (Gal 6:16), will be united under the lordship of Christ.

The hope for David’s throne to be restored was fulfilled in Christ.  He was born the son of David, the heir to the Davidic covenant (Lk 1:32; Rom 1:3; Rv 22:16).  Christ met all the conditions of obedience placed on David’s line (Rom 5:19; Phil 2:8; Heb 5:7-10).  In the Resurrection, Christ took His throne in heaven (Acts 2:33-35; Eph 1:20-23; Phil 2:9; Rv 3:21), from which He leads His people into blessing and victory (Rom 8:37; Eph 4:7-13).  He will reign until all His enemies are defeated (1 Cor 15:24-26).

The purposes of the temple are fulfilled in Christ.  Christ was Himself the perfect sacrifice for sin (Heb 9:11-28; 1 Pt 3:18; 1 Jn 2:2).  He mediates our prayers and intercedes on our behalf in heaven (Heb 3:1; 4:14-16; 6:20; 7:26; 8:1).  As our High Priest and Captain, He will bring all His people into the presence of God (Jn 14:1-4; 1 Thes 4:16-17).

Finally, the book’s revelation of divine blessing and judgment is realized in Christ.  Jesus bore the judgment of God on sin and set His people free to follow the path of obedience (Rom 3:21-26).  He gives His people new life and makes them citizens of God’s kingdom (Jn 3:16; Phil 3:20).  (Luder Whitlock, Jr., New Geneva Study Bible, NKJV, 561)

 

E-  Repentance and humility remain key to restoration – like any of us have anything to offer the God of the Universe on our own. (see: Mt 3:2-11; 4:17; 11:20-21; 18:4; 21:32; 23:12; Mk 1:4, 15; 6:12; Lk 1:52; 3:3-8; 5:32; 10:13; 11:32; 13:3-5; 14:11; 15:7-10; 18:14; 24:47; Acts 2:38; 3:19; 5:31; 8:22; 11:18; 13:24; 17:30; 20:21; Rom 2:4; 2 Cor 7:9-10; 2 Tm 2:19, 25; Jas 4:6-10; 1 Pt 5:5-6; 2 Pt 3:9)

 

We presently see the glory of the Lord and know that we are changed in his likeness through the working of the Holy Spirit.  In the consummation, we shall be fully glorified like the Son of God (Rom 8:30; 1 Cor 15:49, 51-52).  (Simon J. Kistemaker, New Testament Commentary 2 Corinthians, 129)

 

There is a profound spiritual lesson in this.  We do not glorify God by looking at ourselves but by looking into him.  It is so easy to get lured into a performance-based approach to the Christian life, in which we are always looking at ourselves to see how we are doing spiritually.  It is also easy to waste time worrying what we look like to others.  Instead, we should be looking to Jesus.  Only then can we reflect his glory to others.  As we look to God, we are transformed by his splendor.  And then when people look at us, they see his glory shining through.  (Philip Graham Ryken, Preaching the Word Exodus, 1074)

 

Lest the community suffer “spiritual paralysis” over the threat of divine retribution, the Chronicler also offers select case studies illustrating the divine alternative to covenant curses.  One such case study is the account of King Manasseh’s reign (2 Chr 33:1-9).  Even as God’s justice cannot fail, neither can God’s grace, as attested in the repentance of Manasseh (cf. 2 Chr 33:10-13).  The Chronicler recognizes that his audience must have an understanding of the retribution principle or they are doomed to repeat past failures.  (Andrew E. Hill, The NIV Application Commentary: 1 & 2 Chronicles, 36-37)

 

Worship point:  The more we understand who God is and what He has done, the more we will worship Him as we see His providence, provision, sovereignty and love exhibited over and over again in our lives.  God can use ANYONE who submits their lives to Christ.  Christ will make them into a new creation who can change the world forever.

 

Spiritual Challenge:  Absorb yourself in the book of Chronicles over the next 12 months with the goal of understanding the problems the Chronicler was addressing and the solutions that he wished for his audience to embrace.  Then make application to your own life.  Finally, realize that these principles and instructions are for EVERYONE and not just leaders.  And the solution as well as the fulfillment of these promises find their “yes” in Jesus.

 

The prophetic interpretation of life, which is Israel’s greatest achievement, is thus the product of her deepest travail.  This is the paradox which the whole Bible teaches–that we lose in order to gain, that through weakness we become strong, that God frequently chooses the road to defeat as the road to victory.  No books speak more eloquently of this theme than the Books of Kings and Chronicles when seen in relationship to other books of the Bible and in the context of the whole story of the People of God.  (Robert C. Dentan, The Layman’s Bible Commentary, 1Kings-2 Chronicles, 8)

 

Wholeheartedness appears in several contexts that shed light on what the Chronicler meant by the terminology.  For instance, it is closely associated with being “willing” to serve God (1 Chr 28:9), giving money “freely” (1 Chr 29:9), doing “everything” required for completing the temple (1 Chr 29:19), seeking God “eagerly” (2 Chr 15:15), judging “faithfully” in the fear of God (2 Chr 19:9), and performing well “in everything” (2 Chr 31:21).  In a word, to devote oneself wholeheartedly to God meant to render service with sincerity, enthusiasm and determination.  (Richard L. Pratt, 1 & 2 Chronicles, A Mentor Commentary, 36-37)

 

Success is guaranteed when God is “with” his people (1 Chr 4:10; 9:20; 11:9; 17:2, 8; 22:11, 16; 18; 28:20; 2 Chr 1:1; 13:12; 15:2, 9; 17:3; 19:6; 20:17; 25:7; 32:7, 8; 35:21; 36:23).  (Richard L. Pratt, 1 & 2 Chronicles, A Mentor Commentary, 31)

 

The Chronicler juxtaposes human strength and greatness with the commentary that these leaders were “unfaithful” to God (1 Chr 5:25).  Like the psalmist, he knows that God delights not in human strength but in those who trust in his unfailing love (cf. Ps 20:7; 147:10).  (Andrew E. Hill, The NIV Application Commentary: 1 & 2 Chronicles, 120)

 

Quotes to Note:

The restoration of the Kingdom of God comes in three stages.  First, the inauguration of the Kingdom came through Christ’s earthly ministry and the work of his apostles (see Mk 1:14-15; Lk 4:43; 10:11; Acts 1:3).  Second, after the ministry of the apostles the continuation of the Kingdom of God extends to all the world through the ministry of the Church (see Acts 28:23; Rv 1:6; 5:10).  Third, in the future Jesus will bring the Kingdom to its consummation in the New Heavens and New Earth (see Rv 21:1-22:21).  (Richard L. Pratt, 1 & 2 Chronicles, A Mentor Commentary, 13)

 

In the ancient Near East it was common for royal inscriptions to indicate divine blessings toward kings by recounting the king’s successful construction efforts.  City walls, roadways, fortifications, palaces, and temples were considered proof that a king was in the favor of his god.  In much the same way, the Chronicler indicated his evaluation of kings at particular moments by noting their building projects.  (Richard L. Pratt, 1 & 2 Chronicles, A Mentor Commentary, 49)

 

Israel’s identity crisis during the postexilic period is primarily a matter of poor theology, not bad psychology.  (Andrew E. Hill, The NIV Application Commentary: 1 & 2 Chronicles, 67)

 

The disclosure of established truth in the Torah and the disruption of this truth by the Prophets is mediated by the wisdom of God.  This is essential for the educational process because it means “not everything is up for grabs.”  Also, the discernment fostered by the Hebrew wisdom books encourages a synthesis that recognizes the interconnectedness of all of life.  This means wisdom affirms human dependence on God, yet preserves and fosters the dignity of human initiative, investigation, and reflection–all the while nurturing the mystery of God’s inscrutability.  (Andrew E. Hill, The NIV Application Commentary: 1 & 2 Chronicles, 90)

 

The Chronicler’s selection of genealogical materials here seems to be motivated by his concern to establish continuity between the restoration community and earlier Israelite history.  (Andrew E. Hill, The NIV Application Commentary: 1 & 2 Chronicles, 95)

 

It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.  Jesus — Luke 5:31-32