Are Old Testament promises valid today?

[Kokopelli]

A question came up among some friends. It was about 2 Chronicles 7:14.

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 I will forgive their sin and will heal their land. 2 Chronicles 7:14

Some said this promise was only applicable to the Israelis at that time. Some said it is still applicable today because His Word stands forever and is relevant for any peoples. (I?m in the latter camp.)

Argument for: Can I Claim the Old Testament Promises for my Life Today? https://wordatwork.org.uk/answers/ca...-my-life-today

Argument against: Do Old Testament promises apply today? http://wordwisebiblestudies.com/do-o...s-apply-today/

This question on 2 Chronicles 7:14 could also be asked about Jeremiah 29:11.

"For I know the plans I have for you,? declares the LORD, ?plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future. ? Jeremiah 29:11

Please share your thoughts on this subject.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

I know my Great Grandparents would claim a promise made in the Bible and it usually worked out for them. My Grandparents were less overt about it, but felt similarly. I've known others who did pretty much the same.

I suspect it comes down to sincerely held belief in that much of this has to do with context. 2 Chronicles 7 needs to be understood in its entirety and not simply from a single, parsed text. It's about what happens when you (or a people) abandon God vs. remaining faithful. If you accept that the Bible speaks to all individuals and people, for all times, that is the 'promise' which should be drawn from the text.

To say that it was a promise solely for the time of Solomon is tantamount to saying that the Bible is not applicable today.

But... but... What about the rules for slaves or which daughter must be married first or sacrifices or...???

Look up the word "allegory." It means a 'symbolic representation' which can be interpreted literally or it can represent something which isn't quite literal, but directly related.

Think about Christ's critique of the Pharisees in terms of being too literally tied to the letter of the Law vs. understanding the intent of the Law. I believe the same holds true regarding Old (and New) Testament promises. If you believe in the context in which the promise was offered, then the intent of the promise is what is being claimed, not necessarily the specifics. Put another way, the promise and its fulfillment are up to your understanding, acceptance, and intended utilization of it, not someone else's.

[Barang]

even though it's for israelites, the application is universal. just like the 10 Commandments, the whole world will benefit from them which produce stable, unity, orderly, morally government and people.

rehab was not an israelites but because she trusted God, she benefited and rewarded for it.

[Garand Hunter]

Ditto, Rahab AND Ruth ! Ruth was a Moabite woman who threw in with her mother in law and Almighty God who Naomi worshiped. And Ruth became the great great great grandmother of David, son of Jesse. And Trapped In Calif you gave a excellent response.

Psalm 1

[Dirtlaw]

Israel is special, but God loves us all. As long as you have a seat at the table don't worry about where you sit.

[RAMCLAP]

I5t says. "if MY people". If our land is not right that means Christian have done something wrong and need to repent. We can't look at the wicked and claim it's their issue. They are not His people. We must turn from our wicked ways.

[damon1272]

The only OT promise that believers today can claim is that they are a son or daughter of Abraham. Promises to the Jews are for the Jews. Promises for all others is for the rest. Our promises lay in heaven whereas the Jew has earthly promises that God will good on. If God fails to keep any promise or covenant then he ceases to be God.

[socal m1 shooter]

[...]

I suspect it comes down to sincerely held belief in that much of this has to do with context. 2 Chronicles 7 needs to be understood in its entirety and not simply from a single, parsed text. It's about what happens when you (or a people) abandon God vs. remaining faithful. If you accept that the Bible speaks to all individuals and people, for all times, that is the 'promise' which should be drawn from the text.

To say that it was a promise solely for the time of Solomon is tantamount to saying that the Bible is not applicable today.

[...]

As others have put it, if you want to understand what the Bible is saying to you, first understand what it meant to the original audience, then consider how it might apply today, in view of your circumstances and your life.

There is consensus that 1 and 2 Chronicles were written for exiles returning from the Babylonian captivity. The people alive at the time of Solomon were long dead when this part of the scriptures was written, so why would the author(s) record this? Possibly to encourage the returnees. My ESV reads:

2 CHRONICLES

Introduction

Second Chronicles, which extends 1 Chronicles? history of Judah, was written sometime after the people began to return from the Babylonian exile in 538 B.C. (2 Chronicles 36:23). The "chronicler," perhaps trying to encourage the returned exiles, recalls the greatness of Solomon?s reign. Most of the book, however, focuses on Judah?s fall into sin which had led to the exile. Judah had several godly kings, especially Hezekiah and Josiah, but it still declined into sin. Still, God remained faithful to his covenant people, and as the book closes it jumps ahead several years, recording the decree of Cyrus that allowed the Jewish exiles to return to their Promised Land. The author is unknown, although many have thought that Ezra was the principal writer.

Israel is special, but God loves us all. As long as you have a seat at the table don't worry about where you sit.

Agree, God is not finished with Israel yet.

There are many parallel passages and verses to 2 Chronicles 7:14. A couple examples:

Ezekiel 18:21:

"But if a wicked person turns away from all his sins that he has committed and keeps all my statutes and does what is just and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die. None of the transgressions that he has committed shall be remembered against him; for the righteousness that he has done he shall live. Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, declares the Lord God, and not rather that he should turn from his way and live? But when a righteous person turns away from his righteousness and does injustice and does the same abominations that the wicked person does, shall he live? None of the righteous deeds that he has done shall be remembered; for the treachery of which he is guilty and the sin he has committed, for them he shall die.

"Yet you say, 'The way of the Lord is not just.' Hear now, O house of Israel: Is my way not just? Is it not your ways that are not just? When a righteous person turns away from his righteousness and does injustice, he shall die for it; for the injustice that he has done he shall die. Again, when a wicked person turns away from the wickedness he has committed and does what is just and right, he shall save his life. Because he considered and turned away from all the transgressions that he had committed, he shall surely live; he shall not die. Yet the house of Israel says, ?The way of the Lord is not just.? O house of Israel, are my ways not just? Is it not your ways that are not just?

"Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways, declares the Lord God. Repent and turn from all your transgressions, lest iniquity be your ruin. Cast away from you all the transgressions that you have committed, and make yourselves a new heart and a new spirit! Why will you die, O house of Israel? For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Lord God; so turn, and live."

Jeremiah 3:11-22

Return, faithless Israel,
declares the Lord.
I will not look on you in anger,
for I am merciful,
declares the Lord;
I will not be angry forever.
Only acknowledge your guilt,
that you rebelled against the Lord your God
and scattered your favors among foreigners under every green tree,
and that you have not obeyed my voice,
declares the Lord.
Return, O faithless children,
declares the Lord;
for I am your master;
I will take you, one from a city and two from a family,
and I will bring you to Zion.
[...]
Return, O faithless sons;
I will heal your faithlessness.
[...]

A diligent search will reveal more.

The New Bible Commentary adds [emphasis mine]

2 Chronicles 7:11?22 The answer of revelation. In contrast to God?s fire, which was public but temporary, the vision?we might say, the interview?which he gave to Solomon was private, but has become enduring common property. It is an answer, concise but meaningful, to the whole of ch. 6. V 12 confirms what Solomon said about the temple in 6:1?11. Vs 13?14 accept the entire sevenfold prayer of 6:22?42 (and take for granted a people who are both called by God?s name and possessed of a land; a passage not therefore to be applied thoughtlessly in our NT times). Vs 15?16 confirm that God?s eyes, ears and name are indeed there in the temple (6:18?21, 40). Vs 17?18 confirm 6:14?17; the you is Solomon (singular), and while in Kings he did sin and his throne did in the end fall vacant, in the Chronicles sense he fulfilled God?s will, and Israel has never lacked a ruler. But in vs 19?22, which pick up Solomon?s seventh request (6:36?39), the you is plural and means Israel, and whether or not Solomon disobeyed God, Israel certainly did. What is more, the Chronicler and his readers have actually seen both the threatened loss of land and temple (20) and the prayed-for restoration (6:37?39). These closing verses are a summary also of the fundamental rule of cause and effect which is so much a part of the Chronicler?s teaching: if you obey, you will prosper; if you disobey, you will suffer; if you repent, you will be forgiven.

The Bible Knowledge Commentary reads [again, emphasis mine]:

2 Chronicles 7:13?22. God then encouraged Solomon by the promise that if His judgment (by drought, locusts, or a plague) should fall on the nation for their sin, they need only turn to the Lord in earnest humility and repentance and they would find forgiveness and restoration (vv. 13?15). This promise, in answer to Solomon?s prayer (6:26?31), was given because God?s presence among His people Israel is eternal, focused particularly on the temple (7:16). The covenant theme comes through clearly in the Lord?s declaration that if Solomon would obey Him (v. 17) he could be assured of God?s reciprocal blessing in the perpetuation of his dynastic rule (v. 18; cf. 1 Chron. 17:11?14). Conversely, if Solomon and the nation should fall away from the Lord and serve other gods they would be exiled and their magnificent temple destroyed (2 Chron. 7:19?20). This does not suggest that the Davidic Covenant is conditional from God?s standpoint. He had said it would be forever (2 Sam. 7:13, 15?16). But Solomon?s (or any king?s) enjoyment of it would depend on his obedience to God.
Later Solomon did worship other gods (1 Kings 11:4?8), as did many of his successors, so the nation was exiled (2 Chron. 6:36; 36:17?18, 20) to Babylon and the temple destroyed (36:19). Everyone who would witness the desolation of the land and the temple would know that it was a mark of God?s judgment on His people because of their sin (7:21?22).

Is it permissible that we as Americans might think that widespread repentance and revival in this country might lead to MAGA? I think that is a stretch. God has raised up many nations across the span of history, according to the good purpose of His will; America, however exceptional, is just one of those nations. If God chooses to stir up repentance and revival in this country, well and good, but it doesn't necessarily follow that it will change our trajectory as a nation, even if we might hope for that. Repentance doesn't allow one to escape the consequences of sin; for example, if a person drinks to the point of inebriation, they may repent and receive forgiveness but that doesn't allow them to skip over the hangover. Consider, scripture blasts the Canaanites for hundreds of years of sacrificing children; how much more are we liable to judgement for the tens of millions of babies sacrificed to the idol of self in this nation? That is just one of our big sins.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

As others have put it, if you want to understand what the Bible is saying to you, first understand what it meant to the original audience, then consider how it might apply today, in view of your circumstances and your life.

There is consensus that 1 and 2 Chronicles were written for exiles returning from the Babylonian captivity. The people alive at the time of Solomon were long dead when this part of the scriptures was written, so why would the author(s) record this? Possibly to encourage the returnees. My ESV reads...

That's always the challenge, considering how it might apply to current circumstances. My reference, however, was understanding the context of the text itself; not how it 'fit' an historical timeline.

12 And the Lord appeared to Solomon by night, and said unto him, I have heard thy prayer, and have chosen this place to myself for an house of sacrifice...

17 And as for thee, if thou wilt walk before me, as David thy father walked, and do according to all that I have commanded thee, and shalt observe my statutes and my judgments;

18 Then will I stablish the throne of thy kingdom, according as I have covenanted with David thy father, saying, There shall not fail thee a man to be ruler in Israel.

That is the 'context' in which the promise needs to be understood, not necessarily a 'consensus' agreement among academics millennia later as to why it was thought relevant to include.

It goes back to something I recently mentioned in another thread. About 40 years ago, I heard an old Baptist preacher talking about modern translations in response to which was the best. His opinion was that if you weren't able to find your answer in the King James Version, you weren't doing it right; i.e., God would lead you to the answers you seek.

Such stuck with me over the years. It's not that references outside the Bible are irrelevant and it's not that each of us derives our 'answers' uniquely, it's that one needs to be cautious in where they place their emphasis in terms of where the basis for their answer is derived. For example, is the focus on the text of Exodus or is the focus on who actually wrote it and the various inferences which can be derived from that debate? The same holds true for practically every book in the Bible.

I'll give you an example. The Big Bang Model was developed by a Catholic priest and is currently taught as the basis for much of 'existence' as we know it. Where did the Catholic priest get it? From the Old Testament and works in Science up to that point. Since then, the Model has been refined, but not necessarily refuted beyond it not being a 'proper,' Scientific theory as opposed to a 'model' in search of theories to support it and 'fill in the blanks.' Yet, scant attention is typically paid as to its origins. Why?

Because it would distract from 'the story' being told. (Bear in mind that a case can be proffered that the Genesis account is directly linked to 'the beginning;' which is why you see so many genealogies included in the Bible. But, it is also an avenue of critique/criticism in that some of the accounts in Genesis can be found, in one form or another, in 'older, unrelated' texts. I take it as an exemplar of Moses being raised and educated in 'Pharaoh's Court,' where he would have access to such accounts; particularly given the Reader's Digest version, a synthesis if you will, proffered in the Bible in terms of the Science in that faith, not Science, was the emphasis). While Lema?tre did not see Science and Religion as being 'in conflict,' many do; mistaking the methods of deriving 'answers' (Science claims induction, Religion claims deduction) as the actual 'story.'

Such is why I advise caution in contextualizing your answers. We know what happens with the 'debates' surrounding Scientific theory and Religious tenets regarding 'origins.' The same can be said for 'historical context' when discussing what 'the promise' was. One is likely to 'end up in the weeds' rather than focused on the actual question.

Just a thought.

[Kokopelli]

I'm seeing a consensus here. That being the old testament promises, hopes and Words of God do not apply today. We should not "hang our hat" on promises such as Jeremiah 29:11...

For I know the plans I have for you,? declares the Lord, ?plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future. - Jeremiah 29:11

If these promises don't apply to the modern believer, should we stop teaching children to memorize Psalm 23? What would be the purpose? (I'm being intentionally absurd in saying that for the sake of discussion.)

The Lord is my shepherd;
I shall not want.
He makes me to lie down in green pastures;
He leads me beside the still waters.
He restores my soul;
He leads me in the paths of righteousness
For His name?s sake.

Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death,
I will fear no evil;
For You are with me;
Your rod and Your staff, they comfort me.

You prepare a table before me in the presence of my enemies;
You anoint my head with oil;
My cup runs over.
Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me
All the days of my life;
And I will dwell in the house of the Lord
Forever.

These old testament verses tell us about the character of God. Did God change? (Don't get me wrong. I'm being intentionally absurd again.)
Apostle Paul tells us, the believer, that we are grafted in.

And if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them, and with them became a partaker of the root and fatness of the olive tree, Romans 11:17

I truly believe that even though Israel is a uniqe people, chosen and set apart by Father God, each believer is a child of God by adoption through Christ and an heir to all things, all hope and all promises of God. Does that make sense?

And if you are Christ?s, then you are Abraham?s seed, and heirs according to the promise. - Galatians 3:29

[TrappedinCalifornia]

I'm seeing a consensus here. That being the old testament promises, hopes and Words of God do not apply today. We should not "hang our hat" on promises such as Jeremiah 29:11...

Huh?!?!

...To say that it was a promise solely for the time of Solomon is tantamount to saying that the Bible is not applicable today...

even though it's for israelites, the application is universal. just like the 10 Commandments, the whole world will benefit from them which produce stable, unity, orderly, morally government and people...

...And Trapped In Calif you gave a excellent response.

Israel is special, but God loves us all. As long as you have a seat at the table don't worry about where you sit.

In other words, I see 7 respondents. Of those, 4 seem to agree that the intent of the promise can still be relied on even if the specifics in the Bible note nations known/which existed at the time.

The only OT promise 1 respondent recognizes is that Abraham is our progenitor, yet (emphasis mine)...

The only OT promise that believers today can claim is that they are a son or daughter of Abraham. Promises to the Jews are for the Jews. Promises for all others is for the rest. Our promises lay in heaven whereas the Jew has earthly promises that God will good on. If God fails to keep any promise or covenant then he ceases to be God.

Two other respondents appear to see a need for repentance rather than an acceptance of a promise.

Thus, I'm not sure where you derive your 'consensus' that promises from the OT don't apply today. I'd say that over half and, perhaps, 5 out of 7, have agreed that the promises apply; if not the letter, then the intent. Put another way, the 'consensus' seems to be exactly the opposite of what you appear to be claiming. In that sense, Galatians 3:14 might be the more appropriate reference...

That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

Yet, if you look to the entirety of Galatians 3, it is more about righteousness by faith rather than through works (adherence to Mosaic Law). Remember, the Law being referenced in that chapter is the Law(s) of Moses, which was one way which the promise(s) could be accessed (verse 17)...

And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.

The 'covenant' (or covenants) is (are) a different thing and while it does not negate the promises made or the responsibilities indicated, it does provide a pathway for an ever diverse group which access the promise(s) through faith rather than through bloodline and 'sacrifices' (which, in a sense, is a more complicated discussion in terms of what a 'sacrifice' represents). Remember, the 10 Commandments weren't 'nailed to the cross' in that Christ summarized them with the two, 'greatest' Laws (Matthew 22:36 - 40)...

36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?

37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

38 This is the first and great commandment.

39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Notice verse 40. These two commandments (laws) are what all the other laws are derived from, including the 10 Commandments.

"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind." (Exodus 20)...

3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them...

7 Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy...

10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God...

Those are the first five and seem to derive from the first of the two, greatest commandments.

The other five are direct derivatives of the second, greatest commandment... "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." (Again, Exodus 20)

12 Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.

13 Thou shalt not kill.

14 Thou shalt not commit adultery.

15 Thou shalt not steal.

16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ***, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

(You have to love a language filter which won't allow you to quote the Bible fully. )

Those are the commandments of God to ALL mankind. Covenants were made to/with specific groups, as were specific sets of laws derived from those commandments to address the culture/circumstances of the time. As the groups became increasingly diverse, the 'new covenant,' as presented in the New Testament, encompassed all of mankind and not a specific blood lineage; i.e., 'His people' through faith (Ephesians 2). In other words, you access the intent underlying the promises made via faith/belief in God and adherence to his base commandments or, as I said in my first post... "I suspect it comes down to sincerely held belief..."

Put another way, Jesus is the fulfillment of the Law, not a 'replacement' for it (Matthew 5:17 - 20)...

17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

So, do you believe in the Law to access the promise(s) or do believe in God and follow his commandments to do so? (John 11)...

22 But I know, that even now, whatsoever thou wilt ask of God, God will give it thee...

25 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:

26 And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?

[socal m1 shooter]

A question came up among some friends. It was about 2 Chronicles 7:14. [...]

This question on 2 Chronicles 7:14 could also be asked about Jeremiah 29:11.

Please share your thoughts on this subject.

Not being a Bible scholar, or a seminary graduate, and being ignorant of ancient languages, I rely on my English translation and other resources to understand what I read in my Bible, particularly when it comes to difficult passages or questions such as the one in the OP.

I'm happy to learn from just about anyone or any source, with some exceptions (always ready to take a little and leave a little). That said, here are some helpful resources worth considering for the passages mentioned in the OP.

First, a well-known article from STR:

If there was one bit of wisdom, one rule of thumb, one single skill I could impart, one useful tip I could leave that would serve you well the rest of your life, what would it be? What is the single most important practical skill I?ve ever learned as a Christian?

Here it is: Never read a Bible verse. That?s right, never read a Bible verse. Instead, always read a paragraph at least.

My Radio Trick

When I?m on the radio, I use this simple rule to help me answer the majority of Bible questions I?m asked, even when I?m totally unfamiliar with the verse. It?s an amazingly effective technique you can use, too.

I read the paragraph, not just the verse. I take stock of the relevant material above and below. Since the context frames the verse and gives it specific meaning, I let it tell me what?s going on.

This works because of a basic rule of all communication: Meaning always flows from the top down, from the larger units to the smaller units, not the other way around. The key to the meaning of any verse comes from the paragraph, not just from the individual words.

The numbers in front of the sentences give the illusion the verses stand alone in their meaning. They were not in the originals, though. Numbers were added hundreds of years later. Chapter and verse breaks sometimes pop up in unfortunate places, separating relevant material that should be grouped together.

First, ignore the verse numbers and try to get the big picture. Then begin to narrow your focus. It?s not very hard or time consuming. It takes only a few moments and a little observation of the text.

Begin with the broad context of the book. What type of literature is it history, poetry, proverb? What is the passage about in general? What idea is being developed?

Stand back from the verse and look for breaks in the narrative that identify major units of thought. Ask, ?What in this paragraph or group of paragraphs gives any clue to the meaning of the verse??

There?s a reason this little exercise is so important. Words have different meanings in different contexts (that?s what makes puns work). When we consider a verse in isolation, one meaning may occur to us. But how do we know it?s the right one? Help won?t come from the dictionary. Dictionaries only complicate the issue, giving us more choices, not fewer. Help must come from somewhere else close by: the surrounding paragraph.

With the larger context now in view, you can narrow your focus and speculate on the meaning of the verse itself. Sum it up in your own words.

Finally and this is critical see if your paraphrase makes sense when inserted in the passage. Does it dovetail naturally with the bigger picture?

[...]

Other commentators offer the same kind of advice. Many equivalent admonishments can easily be found. Regarding 2 Chronicles 7:14...

J. Vernon McGee writes (emphasis mine):

I am going to spend time on this last verse (2 Chronicles 7:14) because it has been so often used out of context without regard to its primary meaning. It has been quoted as a promise to us from God that if we do certain things, He will do certain things. This verse has been tailored to fit into any local situation. I don't believe I have ever participated in an evangelistic campaign without someone at some time getting up and quoting this verse of Scripture and saying that he was resting on these promises. I believe that a careful consideration of this verse, its location and content and context, will prevent us from taking like a capsule and swallowing it without some attention to its real meaning. We do violence to it by wrestling it from its place. Just because it seems to fit our plans and says what we want to say, we ignore its primary purpose and rob it of its vitality. It becomes, actually, a meaningless verse as it is being used in our day.

[...]

Now there is an application. This verse has a message for me. I can't toss it aside just because God did not direct it to me. It contains a formula for this hour. "My people"-- God has a people which we call the church or the body of Christ, those who have accepted the Savior, "who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession (KJV: 'a peculiar people') who are zealous for good works" (Titus 2:14). I guess one could say a lot of us are peculiar people, but this means a people for Himself. "Shall humble themselves"-- the flesh is proud, but we are admonished to be humble. "I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called, 2 with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love" (Ephesians 4:1-2).

[...]

"And will heal their land." That does not apply to us. I can't find anywhere in the New Testament where the Lord has promised to heal a piece of real estate. If God has blessed you in a business way, that is extra-- a blessing that He has not promised. Nowhere does God promise material blessing to us. We are blessed with all spiritual blessings in Christ Jesus.
[...]

His comments on this verse actually span a few pages in a printed edition of the TTB commentary; I have only put a small excerpt here.

GotQuestions: meaning of 2 Chronicles 7:14

[...]

When approaching 2 Chronicles 7:14, one must first consider the immediate context. After Solomon dedicated the temple, the Lord appeared to him and gave him some warnings and reassurances. ?The Lord appeared to him at night and said: ?I have heard your prayer and have chosen this place for myself as a temple for sacrifices.? When I shut up the heavens so that there is no rain, or command locusts to devour the land or send a plague among my people, 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 I will forgive their sin and will heal their land? (2 Chronicles 7:12?14).

The immediate context of 2 Chronicles 7:14 shows that the verse is tied up with Israel and the temple and the fact that from time to time God might send judgment upon the land in the form of drought, locusts, or pestilence.

A few verses later God says this: ?But if you turn away and forsake the decrees and commands I have given you and go off to serve other gods and worship them, then I will uproot Israel from my land, which I have given them, and will reject this temple I have consecrated for my Name. I will make it a byword and an object of ridicule among all peoples. This temple will become a heap of rubble. All who pass by will be appalled and say, ?Why has the Lord done such a thing to this land and to this temple?? People will answer, ?Because they have forsaken the Lord, the God of their ancestors, who brought them out of Egypt, and have embraced other gods, worshiping and serving them?that is why he brought all this disaster on them?? (2 Chronicles 7:19?22).

No doubt Solomon would have recognized this warning as a reiteration of Deuteronomy 28. God had entered into a covenant with Israel and promised to take care of them and cause them to prosper as long as they obeyed Him. He also promised to bring curses upon them if they failed to obey. Because of the covenant relationship, there was a direct correspondence between their obedience and their prosperity, and their disobedience and their hardship. Deuteronomy 28 spells out the blessings for obedience and the curses for disobedience. Again, divine blessing and divine punishment on Israel were conditional on their obedience or disobedience.

We see this blessing and cursing under the Law play out in the book of Judges. Judges chapter 2 is often referred to as ?The Cycle of the Judges.? Israel would fall into sin. God would send another nation to judge them. Israel would repent and call upon the Lord. The Lord would raise up a judge to deliver them. They would serve the Lord for a while and then fall back into sin again. And the cycle would continue.

In 2 Chronicles 7, the Lord simply reminds Solomon of the previous agreement. If Israel obeys, they will be blessed. If they disobey, they will be judged. The judgment is meant to bring Israel to repentance, and God assures Solomon that, if they will be humble, pray, and repent, then God will deliver them from the judgment.

In context, 2 Chronicles 7:14 is a promise to ancient Israel (and perhaps even modern-day Israel) that, if they will repent and return to the Lord, He will rescue them. However, many Christians in the United States have taken this verse as a rallying cry for America. (Perhaps Christians in other countries have done so as well.) In this interpretation, Christians are the people who are called by God?s name. If Christians will humble themselves, pray, seek God?s face, and repent, then God will heal their land?often a moral and political healing is in view as well as economic healing. The question is whether or not this is a proper interpretation/application.

The first problem that the modern-day, ?Westernized? interpretation encounters is that the United States does not have the same covenant relationship with God that ancient Israel enjoyed. The covenant with Israel was unique and exclusive. The terms that applied to Israel simply did not apply to any other nation, and it is improper for these terms to be co-opted and applied to a different nation.

Some might object that Christians are still called by God?s name and in some ways have inherited the covenant with Israel?and this may be true to some extent. Certainly, if a nation is in trouble, a prayerful and repentant response by Christians in that nation is always appropriate. However, there is another issue that is often overlooked.

When ancient Israel repented and sought the Lord, they were doing so en masse. The nation as a whole repented. Obviously, not every single Israelite repented and prayed, but still it was national repentance. There was never any indication that a small minority of the nation (a righteous remnant) could repent and pray and that the fate of the entire nation would change. God promised deliverance when the entire nation repented.

When 2 Chronicles 7:14 is applied to Christians in the U.S. or any other modern nation, it is usually with the understanding that the Christians in that nation?the true believers in Jesus Christ who have been born again by the Spirit of God?will comprise the righteous remnant. God never promised that if a righteous remnant repents and prays for their nation, that the nation will be saved. Perhaps if national repentance occurred, then God would spare a modern nation as He spared Nineveh at the preaching of Jonah (see Jonah 3)?but that is a different issue.

Having said that, it is never wrong to confess our sins and pray?in fact, it is our duty as believers to continuously confess and forsake our sins so that they will not hinder us (Hebrews 12:1) and to pray for our nation and those in authority (1 Timothy 2:1?2). It may be that God in His grace will bless our nation as a result?but there is no guarantee of national deliverance. Even if God did use our efforts to bring about national repentance and revival, there is no guarantee that the nation would be politically or economically saved. As believers, we are guaranteed personal salvation in Christ (Romans 8:1), and we are also guaranteed that God will use us to accomplish His purposes, whatever they may be. It is our duty as believers to live holy lives, seek God, pray, and share the gospel knowing that all who believe will be saved, but the Bible does not guarantee the political, cultural, or economic salvation of our nation.

[socal m1 shooter]

Regarding Jeremiah 29:11, J. Vernon McGee skips this verse in TTB. However, since I am pulling from GotQuestions, here's their take on Jeremiah 29:11.

"'For I know the plans I have for you,' declares the Lord, 'plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.'" This verse or portions of it are very popular. Jeremiah 29:11 is often displayed on posters, T-shirts, bumper stickers, etc. This verse is often spoken as a promise of hope to people who are grieving or discouraged. However, before it can be applied, it must first be understood in context.

When interpreting Scripture, we must keep in mind the distinction between a passage’s interpretation and the same passage’s application: a passage can have only one meaning, but it may have many applications. Jeremiah 29:11 is no different. The verse has only one meaning.

Jeremiah 29 is addressed to the exiles in Babylon. As punishment for the sins of Judah, God was going to send the Babylonians to destroy Jerusalem and the temple and to carry away many of the people to Babylon. (See Jeremiah 25:8–14 for one example.) At the time Jeremiah wrote Jeremiah 29, Nebuchadnezzar had already removed some Jews to Babylon (see verse 1), although the total destruction of Jerusalem and the temple was still to come. Jeremiah writes to the exiles to tell them that people would return to the land after 70 years (verse 10). Then he reassures them in verse 11 that God has not forsaken them. They will be restored. God’s plans for His Chosen People were “for good and not for disaster, to give you a future and a hope” (NLT).

In the primary application, Jeremiah 29:11 has nothing to do with any person living today. This verse applied only to the Jews who were in exile in Babylon during the sixth century BC. However, the sentiment expressed is so beautiful and encouraging, is there not any sense in which it applies today? The answer is, yes.

Jeremiah 29:11 has other applications. In particular, this verse reflects a more general principle of God’s grace and affections for those whom He loves, including the modern church. This more general application can be made because of the unchanging nature of God.

God had promised to bring Israel back; therefore, the exiles could be assured that they had a future and a hope. This promise was not made to all nations at the time, but only to Israel. Likewise, God has promised believers in Christ certain things that are not applicable to the human race in general. For those who are in Christ, God has promised that our sins are forgiven and we stand before God justified. God has plans for those in Christ, and those plans are good.

Shades of Jeremiah 29:11 are seen elsewhere in Scripture, such as in Romans 8:31–39: "If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all—how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things? Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies. Who then is the one who condemns? No one. Christ Jesus who died—more than that, who was raised to life—is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword? . . . No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord."

Believers in Christ can be confident that all things will work together for our good and that God has a future planned for us. We have hope that "does not put us to shame" (Romans 5:5). We have been given promises to rely on, just as Israel was. So, if by quoting Jeremiah 29:11 we are thinking of our security in Christ, then the wording is appropriate, even if the historical context does not apply.

A word of caution, however, that Jeremiah 29:11 can be misused as well. First, it is sometimes wrongly applied to humanity in general. Strictly speaking, the promise of Jeremiah 29:11 does not apply to every human being, but only those who are in Christ. Perhaps it could even be extended as part of the invitation to receive Christ: “If you come to Him, He promises you a future and a hope!” Outside of Christ, the only Savior, there is no future and no hope (see John 3:18). Too often, Jeremiah 29:11, quoted without context and applied universally, is made to give the impression that God is a doting grandfather who just wants to spoil us.

The second danger of using this verse without understanding the context is the same as the danger of taking Romans 8:28 out of context. Jeremiah 29:11 promised that the nation of Israel would be restored, but very few of the exiles lived to see the fulfillment of that prophecy 70 years later. Most of them died without seeing the future that God had planned. Likewise, the future and hope we have in Christ are not a guarantee that things will go well in this life. For most believers throughout history and in the world today, the world is a cold and dangerous place. In fact, the promise outlined in Romans 8:28 is specifically that, even though believers will face all sorts of dangers and persecutions in this life (trouble, hardship, persecution, famine, nakedness, danger, sword—see verse 35), Christ will never abandon them. In this life, believers have hope because of the work of the Holy Spirit in our hearts, but the future and the hope and the prosperity that God has planned for believers will be fully realized only after this life of suffering is over.

Other commentators offer similar takes.

If people in Judah wanted to believe that the effects of the first Babylonian invasion would soon be undone, so too did those who had already been taken into exile there. Jeremiah now sends them a letter (showing, incidentally, that communication between the two locations remained possible; there was always traffic around the trade route that lay between them. The family of Shaphan again appears in Jeremiah’s service in v 3; cf. 26:24). In Babylon too the various classes of society are represented (chiefly the upper and better off classes; 2 Ki. 24:14). And there too there is a battle for their mind; prophets are persuading them that they will soon be home (8–9).

The letter contains what seems like bad news, but also a great encouragement. The bad news is that the exile will not be short. Jeremiah repeats his message that it will last seventy years (10; cf. 25:11). However, in the ‘death’ of exile are the seeds of new life. The letter begins to reverse the hitherto bleak preaching of the prophet. Where once he had himself refrained from marrying as a sign that marrying and having children would cease in Judah (16:2), now the exiles may return to normal relationships (6). The people may again increase in number, whereas his previous message had seemed to promise only extinction (4:7).

Just when all planning seems futile, the Lord has plans again for his people (11). The act that had seemed to put an end to the covenant in fact gives life where there had been but the appearance of it. The story illustrates neatly the difference between the Lord’s thinking and human plans (Pr. 16:9; Is. 55:8). What seems to be the end of hope is but the end of tawdry dreams; with God there is always a real future. In it, there is willing and joyful communion with him, no longer hidden by human self-seeking. Nor is this future in some unreal ‘spiritual’ realm. It exists within normal life; hence the marrying and the houses, and—in time—the returning to the ancient land (14). The phrase translated bring you back from captivity is richer than this suggests, implying the full restoration of life in all its dimensions. It will recur several times in the following chapters.
[...]

The Reformation Study Bible simply states "plans for welfare. In contrast to His plan to judge those who remain in Jerusalem, the Lord plans blessing for those who are already in exile." The FaithLife Study Bible says "Yahweh assures the exiles that His long-term plan is good and that He has not abandoned them. Their national calamity would have precipitated feelings of hopelessness and abandonment."

Clearly, these commentators are focused on the immediate context of the letter.

Coming full circle, there is an anecdote related by another STR author regarding modern-day believers "resting on the promise of Exodus 14:14."

Who taught you how to interpret the Bible? I bet I can guess your answer: no one. Chances are, you were never discipled by a mentor, never took a class on biblical interpretation, and never studied a book on the subject. Like many believers (including myself), you probably adopted your own approach to interpreting the Bible. It’s almost a matter of chance whether or not we develop a good system. When it comes to God’s Word, though, isn’t it critical we strive to correctly understand it?

Let me put it plainly: Every Christian has a system of biblical interpretation, whether we know it or not. The only question is whether that system helps or hinders our ability to understand what God is saying in His Word.

This issue came up last month when I was in Cairo, Egypt. I was training up-and-coming leaders in the Egyptian church in theology and apologetics. As is often the case when I teach on hermeneutics (the study of how to interpret the Bible), I got a lot of pushback. That’s a common response among all Christians, not just Egyptian believers. Christians are generally resistant to accepting new principles of biblical interpretation, especially when those principles affect a prior interpretation of a verse they’ve cherished for years.

I understand why that’s the case. The Bible is deeply personal to us. It can be hard and painful to be told we’re misinterpreting a passage that has been meaningful to us.

That’s exactly what happened while teaching my Egyptian brothers and sisters. I was offering a warning not to claim a promise from God when it’s directed exclusively to someone else. For example, we can’t claim the promise to Abraham and expect God to make us “into a great nation” and “bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you” (Gen. 12:2–3). That’s a promise only for Abraham.

A few of my Egyptian friends, suspicious that one of their interpretations was in jeopardy, asked me about a promise they’ve claimed. They turned to Exodus 14:14 and told me they hold on to this promise from God: “The LORD will fight for you; you need only to be still.” The church in Egypt, they explained, is often persecuted and Christians find it difficult to stand up for their faith against a dominant Muslim culture. Instead, many Egyptian believers find solace in the Exodus 14:14 promise that not only will God fight for them, but that they don’t need to do anything but be still.

I knew the next few minutes would be painful for everyone in that room. It would be painful to them because they were going to be told that verse is not a promise to them. It would be painful for me because I would feel like the bad guy taking away a deeply cherished interpretation they’d held on to for hope. Fidelity to the inspired words in Scripture, though, is more important than making people feel comfortable.

That’s when I told them the “bad” news: Exodus 14:14 is not a promise they or anyone today can claim. It’s exclusively a promise God made the Israelites during a very unique situation: God’s people are trapped. On one side is the Red Sea. On the other side are their former captors racing at them with chariots and weapons. Fearing for their lives, Moses assures the Israelites with the promise that God will fight for them and they need only to be still. God, of course, delivered on that promise that day by miraculously parting the Red Sea and drowning the army that threatened His people.

Displeased with my response, their protests began to mount. My Egyptian friends were not happy, and I was sympathetic to their frustration. Nothing I said helped to assuage their anger. Then, I remembered the key interpretive principle: Never read a Bible verse. I quickly scanned the verses before and after the alleged promise and immediately found a way to make my point clear.

I told my Egyptian friends that if they insist on claiming Exodus 14:14 as a promise from God to them, then I’m going to claim the verse before that, Exodus 14:13, as a promise from God to me. Then I read it out loud: “Do not be afraid. Stand firm and you will see the deliverance the LORD will bring you today. The Egyptians you see today you will never see again.” Immediately, they began to laugh. They realized that verse couldn’t be a promise to me because chances were good that I’d return to the Middle East and would see my Egyptian friends again. That’s not to mention that I’ve already returned once a year for six years and seen many of them over and over again.

Thankfully, several of them began to see my point. It’s one we all need to keep in mind. Always read a verse in context to avoid misunderstanding and, therefore, misapplying the Word of God. Could anything be more important than making sure our eagerness to apply Scripture doesn’t result in putting words in God’s mouth?

[smokycuh]

We know that with the New Testament the old ways were abolished and Jesus created a new covenant which included gentiles to be saved. We receive God?s promise on top of everlasting life through His sacrifice. So I believe yes this promise is true today for all believers (jews + gentiles).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Kokopelli]

Regarding Jeremiah 29:11, J. Vernon McGee skips this verse in TTB. However, since I am pulling from GotQuestions, here's their take on Jeremiah 29:11.

Other commentators offer similar takes.

The Reformation Study Bible simply states "plans for welfare. In contrast to His plan to judge those who remain in Jerusalem, the Lord plans blessing for those who are already in exile." The FaithLife Study Bible says "Yahweh assures the exiles that His long-term plan is good and that He has not abandoned them. Their national calamity would have precipitated feelings of hopelessness and abandonment."

Clearly, these commentators are focused on the immediate context of the letter.

Coming full circle, there is an anecdote related by another STR author regarding modern-day believers "resting on the promise of Exodus 14:14."

My pastor concurs. That Jeremiah 29:11 is taken completely out of context by today's Christian. It is a popular sign and piece of art on display in many homes. But the verse applies to Israel at that time only, if taken in context of the complete passage.