This started out as a response to a comment over on Nowheresville, USA (from a post on 9/25). It had been suggested that "all of scripture preaches the gospel." I agree with this. This was countered by the example of 1 Chonicles 2. An unsaved person, hearing this chapter preached, would not be able to get the gospel out of it and be saved. I disagree. The following comment first defends the notion that all scripture preaches the gospel by distinguishing between views of how a person is saved. I then offer a way in which the gospel can be seen in I Chronicles 2. Should you choose to continue, you may decide for yourself how far off the mark it is....
I am convinced that the faithful preaching of 1 Chronicles 2 can be an effectual means towards the conversion of the unsaved. Faith comes by hearing the preached word. It is not, as so many in the evangelical world would have it, the result of mental agreement to a series of propositions. As though the Holy Spirit had to await a decision. Before I get chastised for not promoting God's simple plan of salvation, please know that I am not rejecting the teaching of such passages as Romans 10:9-13.
At issue is a consistently Reformed view of how the Holy Spirit brings about salvation. That this is, by far, the minority view has been exacerbated by the fact that many otherwise Reformed Christians have bought into the majority. This view is familiar enough. Tell the unbeliever that he's a sinner, that Jesus died for his sins and then rose again, and now, all he has to do is believe this (look to Jesus, ask Jesus into his heart, pray the sinners prayer, etc.) and he will be saved. Don't get me wrong: many an unbeliever has come to salvation by hearing this account. But it wasn't because Christ is any more the subject of Romans 10 than he is of, say, Numbers 5.
This is what makes faithful preaching, on whatever passage, an effectual means of salvation: all scripture points to the person and work of Christ. It is the job of the preacher to bring this out. Genesis 12 is not a morality tale on lying; 1 Samuel 17 is not about overcoming personal obstacles; Nehemiah is not about leadership principles. These are all about Christ and should be preached in such a way that he is the focus. I do not deny that this can be exceedingly difficult. Hence the need for well-trained ministers.
Romans 10, and passages like it, make such great salvation chapters for the average believer to use because Christ is so obvious in them. Gradually, however, the content of the gospel has been confined to this kind of passage (the Romans road, a few spatterings in John and Revelation, and a couple of places in Isaiah). Consequently, the rest of the Bible is reduced to the status of a practical living manual. And so, the all too common Sunday sermon- Aesop's fables are retold with the names and places changed followed by an unnatural segue into an invitation where the gospel can be presented. And that invitation is important. Heads bowed, eyes closed, hands raised, one more verse. Anything to get them down that aisle, because, if they leave without making a decision, they may never come back and get another opportunity.
So what of the aforementioned consistently Reformed view of salvation? It will depend upon an affirmation of the following sequence: Regeneration precedes faith. This regeneration is nothing less than the supernatural work of the Holy Spirit. In most cases, he uses the instrumentality of the preached word. In his own time, the Holy Spirit will use the preaching of the word to bring one of his elect to life. Having this life, the elect person will believe the content of the preached word. He will desire more of it and will return, thereby growing in the knowledge of Christ. And if he dies before ever getting to the part where Jesus died and rose again, he will still be saved.
Salvation is not to be reduced to believing these pertinent facts about Jesus and then saying a prayer to that effect. It is rather the case that the regenerate person will believe whatever truth he is told about Christ. A regenerate person cannot deny the death and resurrection of Christ, nor his full deity, dual nature, etc. Yet, it is not the case that this person will have heard all of these doctrines at the moment of his regeneration. If he sits under the preaching of the word long enough, he will; for it is the pastor's responsibility to preach the whole counsel of God.
But what, specifically, about 1 Chronicles 2? First, approach it knowing that it is about Christ. Next, put it in context. How does it fit into those chapters immediately surrounding it? into the book (which, despite the division, consists of both 1 and 2 Chronicles)? into the OT? into the Bible as a whole? What are the main themes in these contexts? Or, what are the Christological themes? What is the literary structure? What kind of typology is there? Does the NT intepret any of these?
1 Chronicles 2 lies within the immediate context of the first ten chapters, all of which are genealogies. These are arranged in a chiastic structure that emphasizes the tribe of Levi and the priesthood in chapter 6. All of who are associated with the temple. Chapter 2 narrows right down to the sons of Judah and then to the family of David. Then it appears to get out of order. But this is a deliberate literary device to draw attention to key persons and themes. It starts out with Caleb's line and only gets as far as Bezalel, the grandson of Hur. Then we back up to Hezron and go through some more of his descendents only to end up back at Caleb and then to Hur. Then we note that Hur has more sons than the one mentioned when we saw him last.
Hur is an important anchor. His genealogy last ended with Bezalel. This is the same Bezalel from Exodus 31 who fashioned much of the tabernacle. Note the implicit connection to the temple (cf. ch. 6). However, this is only a minor point here. In the immediate context, the main point is the Davidic dynasty, which is introduced in the first genealogy of chapter 2. When it is mentioned again, it takes up chapter 3. It is emphasized by the use of an inclusio, that is, a set of literary markers that act as bookends. In this case, these are a reference to Hur. Different sections of the genalogies are set off by the combination, "The sons of x....these were the sons of x." [2:25,33; 2:42,50] The same thing happens with the rest of Hur's genalogy (not counting Uri and Bezalel). 2:50-"The sons of Hur the firstborn of Ephrathah" 4:4--"These were the sons of Hur, the firstborn of Ephrathah, the father of Bethlehem." And right in the middle of Hur's genealogy is the Davidic dynasty. David is not one of his descendents. This unusual placement is a way of saying, "This is important."
Notice something else that the author has done. In 2:19, we are told that Hur's mother is "Ephrath." But in the subsequent bookends, this is changed to "Ephrathah." And in 4:4, the city of Bethlehem is mentioned (this is a city, as are several of the names. "Father" should be understood as "ruler" or "founder"). In a section dealing with the clans of Judah, the line of David has been set apart by mention of the terms "Bethlehem" and "Ephrathah." This is not coincidence. Chronicles is a post-exilic book whose audience would have been aware of Micah 5:2-"But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are too little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose origin is from of old, from ancient days."
The main themes of the book have already been identified in the genealogies. The primary theme is the temple. The remaining narrative sections of Chronicles are divided up into units. Most of these are structured so as to point to the temple. The book ends with the decree of Cyrus to rebuild the temple, which, years earlier, had been destroyed. And now, let the NT interpret this final image- "Destroy this temple and I will raise it up." Chronicles is a theology of the temple written for the encouragement of those post-exilic Jews who had gone back to rebuild it.
But alongside the theme of the temple is that of the Davidic dynasty. These are interwoven in the Davidic Covenant recorded in I Chronicles 17. There, David wanted to build a house, or a temple, for the Lord. The Lord refuses, saying that David's son will do it instead. But he makes this promise in v. 10-"Moreover, I declare to you that the Lord will build you a house." David's son would be confirmed in this house forever and his throne would be established forever.
Both the temple house and the Davidic house are themes that find their fulfillment in Christ. Both are introduced in 1 Chronicles 2. When considered in its overall context, the gospel is in this text.
Posted by kcourter at setembro 30, 2003 6:26 AM