Introduction - Expository Notes on the Bible (Constable)

Resource > Expository Notes on the Bible (Constable) > 2 Chronicles > Introduction

For an explanation of the title, writer, date, scope, and purpose of this book, see my comments in my notes on 1 Chronicles. Second Chronicles continues the historical narrative begun in 1 Chronicles.

Message 1

hide text

Even though 1 and 2 Chronicles give one continuous story the emphasis in 2 Chronicles is different from that in 1 Chronicles. In 1 Chronicles the emphasis is the importance of the temple in national life. However in 2 Chronicles the emphasis is the impotence of the temple in national life. First Chronicles condemns rationalism in national life, the idea that we can get along without God. Second Chronicles condemns ritualism in national life, the idea that what satisfies God is external conformity rather than internal reality. First Chronicles emphasizes the importance of recognizing God in national life. Second Chronicles emphasizes the importance of following up that formal recognition with actual recognition in attitudes and actions. Second Chronicles is a negative lesson because in it we see that the Israelites' recognition of God was only formal, not actual.

In the first part of the book (chs. 1-9) we have the story of Solomon. It is a demonstration of the impotence and uselessness of merely formal religion. This comes through in four respects.

First, Solomon's inheritance was more than the throne of Israel. His throne only gave him the opportunity to fulfill God's purpose for his life. That purpose was to enable the people to acknowledge Yahweh's rule over them that the temple symbolized. This had been David's great passion in life. He wanted the people to realize that national strength came from submission to God's heavenly throne. Solomon appreciated that fact. When he offered his first sacrifice as king to God he did so at the old tabernacle, not at the temporary tent where the ark resided. He realized that Israel's strength lay in her relationship to God that the tabernacle symbolized. His temple was to become the tabernacle's successor. Solomon's real inheritance then was his opportunity to build the temple as a reminder to the people of how important it was for them to recognize Yahweh as their real Ruler.

Second, Solomon's greatness was not really his wealth and political influence. These were the results of his greatness. His real greatness lay in his humility before God and in his intercession for the people with God. He got away from these things, but when he began to reign he had the essentials of greatness.

Third, Solomon's service was not most importantly the administration of Israel, though he did that well. His primary service to the nation was the erection of the temple, which the writer emphasized.

Fourth, Solomon's failure was more significant than that he oppressed the people and that he set the stage for the division of the kingdom. It was essentially the fact that he ceased to recognize God's rule over him and his kingdom, the very thing the temple he had built promoted. His life became self-centered rather than God-centered. He stopped submitting to the Word of God. For Solomon the temple became only an outward form, not the expression of his inward life. It became an object of ritual rather than the expression of reality. In the years that followed, what had become true of Solomon became true of the whole nation.

In the second part of the book (chs. 10-36) we have the history of the nation Solomon ruled. It is an illustration of the impotence and uselessness of merely formal religion. Let me point this out in four respects.

First, the division of the kingdom resulted because Rehoboam did not acknowledge God's sovereignty over the nation in reality even though he did so formally. Rehoboam continued the true form of worship in Judah, but Jeroboam substituted a new form of worship in Israel. In both cases the worship was only a matter of formal observance, not a matter of reality. That is why both nations failed.

Second, the degeneracy of the kingdom of Judah, as well as Israel, continued because most of the kings and people that followed continued worship only as a matter of formal observance. This resulted too in increasing neglect of even the form. People do not continue to observe a form of worship that is devoid of power very long. Mere formalism dies eventually, as itshould. The real issue in Judah was apostasy, infidelity.

Third, the reformations in the kingdom began at the temple. Asa restored the altar. Jehoshaphat sent messengers throughout the land to read the Word of God to the people. Joash renovated the temple. Hezekiah reopened it and revitalized worship in it. Josiah repaired it. In each case, conditions were appalling when these reformations began. In Asa's day the altar was in disrepair. In Jehoshaphat's day the people were ignorant of God's Word. In Joash's day Athaliah had damaged the temple. In Hezekiah's day no one came to the temple. Its doors were shut and its worship abandoned. In Josiah's day not one copy of the Law was available. When the king heard the copy that someone had found in the rubble of the temple read, he was completely unfamiliar with it. Throughout this period of history, about 350 years in chapters 10-36, the nation moved farther and farther from God.

Fourth, the ultimate disaster in the kingdom was the burning of the temple and the captivity of the people. All through the years Solomon's temple had stood as a reminder to the people to recognize God's rule over them as a nation. It had become a hollow symbol, the symbol of a formal ritualism rather than the symbol of a vital relationship. It was only fitting that when the nation ceased to exist and the people left their land the Babylonians destroyed the temple.

If 1 Chronicles teaches that it was necessary that the people recognize God, 2 Chronicles teaches that if that recognition is only formal and ceremonial it is not only useless but impotent.

That is the message of this book. If our recognition of God is only formal and not real, that recognition will be useless for us and impotent in us.

I would like to apply this lesson to us.

First, let me remind you of the similarity that exists between ourselves and the Israelites. They had a physical, material temple. We are a spiritual temple (1 Cor. 3:16; cf. 1 Pet. 2:4-10, esp. vv. 5, 9-10). As the presence of God filled Solomon's temple at its beginning, God's presence filled the church at its beginning (2 Chron. 5:13-14; Acts 2:1-4). As Solomon's temple was the center of national life in Israel, so the church is to be the center of international life in the world. As God intended Solomon's temple to remind His people of His heavenly rule over them, so God intended the church to remind all people of God's rule over them. As Solomon's temple became simply a symbol of a form of worship, so can the church. We must remember what we are here to do, namely to call people to recognize God's gracious and beneficent rule over them that can result in their blessing.

Second, let me point out some manifestations of formalism in the church today. One of these is insistence on doctrinal orthodoxy without a corresponding vital spiritual life. This is what James called dead faith (James 2:20). This can be the possession of both individual Christians and local churches. I do not mean to suggest that doctrinal orthodoxy is unimportant. I am not suggesting that we tear down the temple. But let us make sure that our theological edifice is having its full effect and not merely giving us a false sense of God's approval. It is possible to argue for the correctness of our views and to curse the person who does not share them. That is an evidence of formalism. It is possible to go to church faithfully and yet tolive out of church as though there were no God. That is ritualism. It is possible to worship God earnestly and then to goof off at work. That is formalism, ritualism, empty hypocrisy.

Third, let me point out the consequences of formalism. The most serious consequence is not only that a church will fail to be what God wants it to be. It is also that it will fail to do what God has placed it on the earth to do. As Israel failed to bring the light of God's revelation to the world, the church can fail to do so too. Our nation and our world can rush headlong toward godlessness if we are content merely with playing church. We Christians can bear the marks of unworthy conduct, cowardice in the face of wrong, and carelessness about what is right. If we do, we will be useless and impotent. Why is the modern church unlike the Jerusalem church in Acts 2? It is different because of formalism, ritualism, lack of reality. The world has no time or patience with formalism. Why are so many local churches not growing? They are stagnant because the Christians in them are just going through motions. There is no evidence to others that they are anything but useless and impotent. Is your Christian life vital, or are you just going through motions?

Outline