Gooding, David: 1 - Approaching the Study of Chronicles

Gentlemen, brothers, fellow soldiers, and fellow students, it is a great pleasure to be with you here once more. The years have been long since I last had the pleasure of being with you. Thank you for your grace in asking me to come again. It is lovely to see many faces that I knew before, and it encourages me in my old age to see you present again. Good to see so many of you here, and I've not known you before, but I hope to get to know you in the course of these few days. Our object in this, uh, week's seminar is, as you know, to study together the first and second book of Chronicles. On our last occasion in nineteen ninety, we studied together First and Second Samuel. The year before that, I think, First and Second Kings. There is much in First and Second Chronicles that will be virtually the same as in Kings and, uh, Samuel. But of course, First and Second Chronicles are not the same books as First Samuel and First and First and Second Samuel and First and Second Kings, though they contain the same, uh, much the same material in places. The author of First and Second Chronicles is using this same material for slightly different purposes. So while it will be good for us to notice and to remember what we found in previous years and found since in Samuel and Kings, it will be important, perhaps even more important, to notice the difference between the books of Chronicles and those of Samuel and Kings. Not only in the difference of the selection of material, so that Chronicles omits a great deal of what Kings tells us, but even where Chronicles is telling us the same stories as are told us in Samuel and Kings, it will be wisdom on our part to notice the difference of emphasis that often occurs, eh, between those books. Sometimes that difference can be startling. To take the king, for instance, who goes by the name of Abijam, or sometimes he prefers to be called Abijah, apparently, but never mind. If you take him in the Book of Kings, he is an unmitigated rascal, or worse. To say, yeah, in Chronicles, he has one of the leading speeches conveying the message of God at that moment. It will be important, therefore, to see why that difference is. To mention just one other example, the good king Hezekiah. You will not read of his faults such as you read them in Kings. You will not read of those same, uh, those faults so much in Chronicles. And the order of the things that he did accomplish for God is rather different in Chronicles from what it is in Kings. We study these differences not to cast doubt on the inspiration and authority of the books of Chronicles, but rather as guides to perceiving what the special w- uh, message of Chronicles is. We may rest assured, simply because it is in the canon of Holy Scripture, that Chronicles is there because it has a message to give that no other book gives in quite that same way. Notable, of course, uh, to see even at the first and primary, uh, glimpse of the book, when the nation divided, as they did in the reign of Rehoboam I. The books of Kings follow the history of the Israelite kings in good detail very often, until Israel, the ten tribes, were carried away to, uh, Assyria. But the books of Chronicles, while they record the split between the two tribes and the ten thereafter omit the history of the Israelite kings, except when they impinge on the history of the Judean kings. That gives a very different emphasis, of course, to the second book of Chronicles compared with the first and second books of Kings. I am aware that First and Second Chronicles are not necessarily the favorite books of all believers. There are reasons for it, of course. First of all, uh, those first nine chapters full of names, mostly unpronounceable, about whom nothing is known except their names, you'll see. They are for us just names on a bit of paper. And then when Chronicles gets going and gives us histories that we can, uh, dip into and consider and ponder, we end with another uh eight or nine chapters at the end of First Chronicles, full of names again. There have been some, though they do not readily confess to it, but when they come to these chapters in First Chronicles, affirm their belief in inspiration and pass by and go on to the next more interesting chapters. So they are difficult books. We ha- do and have to believe that they're given by inspiration of God. To study such books and to give of your time and money and energy and thought will require considerable Considerable faith. faith. Faith that these books are indeed inspired of God. But not merely so. For there are many who would lay down their very lives for the sake of the truth that these books are inspired by God, that they believe. All ins- all scripture is given by inspiration of God. All true believers believe that. But some believers are not quite sure about the next bit. All scripture is profitable for teaching. Well, they obviously decide that some books are more profitable than others for teaching. And it is right as Christians that we concentrate on those books that are distinctively Christian, of course. It is a thing to be observed that not all the books of the Bible are written to all believers in the first place. The pastoral epistles, first and second Timothy and Titus, were written in the first place not to all the people of God, but to Paul's fellow workers, men because they had shared his labors and experiences and were at the battlefront in different countries, who would need special advice, teaching, exhortation, and wisdom to fit them for their particular tasks. It is right that we, lesser mortals, should listen in and profit from what God had to say to those eminent servants of God. But I quoted simply as an example, that of course, while all scripture is given to all the people of God, different parts thereof will appeal to believers at different stages in their careers and according to their particular responsibility. You could kill a baby, I suppose, if you ran beef steak down its throat, simply because you enjoy beef steak. Beef steak are for those whose stomachs have grown and whose taste has developed and who need the strength that such diet gives, as distinct from the mush that babies eat. Now, with that proviso, we are called to give ourselves to the study of books like First and Second Chronicles. As I say, it will require faith. We must not expect that we shall get voices from heaven every five minutes, though the whole thing is a voice from heaven. But in order to understand it, we shall need a lot of hard work. We shall need to love the Lord our God with all our minds. And you cannot get out of a computer what you don't first put in. You cannot get out of God's word, its significance, if God's word first doesn't get in, both to our brains and our hearts. And it is the toil, in my experience at least, it is the toil of getting to know these books in their detail, even when they appear dry and difficult and barren, maybe. The faith required to do the toil, to master the detail of the books, so that one knows them backwards and forwards and inside out and upside down. While often as yet, one does not see the particular meaning and the point of it. So that one has to say to the Lord from time to time, well, thank you, Lord, for saying it, but so what? What is the point of it? It will take great faith and powers of endurance. I'm delighted, therefore, for your, uh, faith and courage in joining me here, and let me, uh, further rejoice before you in the fact that you have volunteered, knowing it in advance, that these are seminars in which we work together. I, because I have of recent times been concerned with First and Second Chronicles, have volunteered to lead many of the sessions. But then there are times for questions and contributions. Please note the contribution side. Those words don't ask too many questions. Ah, they'll say contributions all welcomed at all levels. It's interesting to know what this book means to you, if it means to you, as probably it will, something a little different from what it means to other people. At the same time, if we could make the contributions, bearing in mind that there are contributions on the study of the books of First and Second Chronicles. And if you have special thoughts on the Good Samaritan, well, we shall have a special time for that if we can find a time in, in, in the orario, uh, you see, to hear about the Good Samaritan. So. So now I begin, if you will have patience with me, and just going over briefly some of those things that I've made in your copy here under preliminary remarks. Some of them were simply bold exhortations. Let me explain some other things. Uh, this is page one of the brochure you were given, preliminary remarks. Under, uh, number four, let me just explain, uh, what I mean by that. Since the main topic of the two books is the building of the temple at Jerusalem, we shall find it easy to see in the narrative many foreshadowing of Christian themes, but we shall run into difficulties and frustrations and confusions if we do not make sure that we have first understood these books at the historical level. Now let's, let me just underline that. I am not saying that typology is wrong. There are those that say that it is a false approach, false hermeneutics, to use these historical books of the Old Testament as though they were types of this, that, and the other, and that typology is a somewhat suspect, uh, method of, of interpretation, and that the, uh, uh, the wise should not engage in it, unless the New Testament at some point or other actually indicates that such and such a story or event or institution, eh, can be understood typologically. For my part, I think that is, uh, a very restricted hermeneutics. I am not among the flat earthers. Surely, if you understand Earth, you have to start with Earth, you'll see. Uh, and the Earth is, in the scientific sense, eh, eh, eh, eh, more than flat anyway, it's round. But what I mean is, there is much more than one level to God's inspired word. But if we are to understand the higher levels and the larger levels of God's word, it is sound principle that we start at the basic level, the ground floor. And in the first and second book of Chronicles, the basic level, of course, is the historical level. That will be important. Now, it very often happens that here and there, in books like First Chronicles, there's a story that has been much publicized by preachers and students because it has lent itself easily to interpretation as a type, and therefore these things come swimming into our minds with ease, and there's no harm in mentioning it either. Sometimes our perceptions at that level of interpretation can usefully and profitably lead on to beginning to see how the first basic historical level, uh, fits together. But in these studies, we shall make a point of trying to emphasize, first and foremost, the historical level. Now, why is that important? Well, let me cite one illustration outside of Chronicles, bearing in mind Good Samaritans and all that, I know, but, uh, let me take one incident, uh, you'll say, well known to all believers, and show that there is more than one level of meaning. And it would, it would be important to start at the historical. The famous story how Abraham was commanded to take his son Isaac and offer him on an altar as a sacrifice to God has often appeared to believers, and quite rightly so, all down the centuries, and not just in the last century following, has all down the centuries appealed to believers as a picture of the Father and the Son walking harmoniously together to the place of sacrifice at Calvary, and how the Son, in obedience to the Father, allowed himself to be placed on the altar. Not only Christians have saw it, seen it so, but even rabbinic Judaism saw in that story the glimmerings of redemption and will tell you that Israel is redeemed by the blood of Isaac, who offered himself as a sacrifice in sheer obedience to God. While that is so, the New Testament calls our attention that there is a first floor meaning to that story. James chapter two reminds us that the first historical lesson of Abraham and Isaac's sacrifice is what we call justification by works. Was not our father Abraham justified by his works when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? That would be important to notice that, lest starting too soon with our typology, we forget that it had a basic meaning at the level of justification by works. And that story at that level, therefore, becomes exceedingly valuable in helping us to perceive what the doctrine of justification by works means. When I was a youth, eh, not so long ago as some of you think, eh, uh, I was taught a little ditty. Well, it was more than that, it was an apopham or something of the kind, that, uh, a person is justified by faith before God and by his works before men. That is, God sees our faith, and so long as we're believers, uh, he accepts us and we are justified. Men, on the other hand, who can't see our hearts, uh, call to see our works. So we're justified before God by faith, but before men by works. And that sounds very helpful and interesting, convincing, uh, mini interpretation. Can't be true. Well, can't, it's not a hundred percent true, is it? Because if you take the story itself at the historical level, Abraham was justified by works before whom? God. God, of course. When Abraham had bound his son onto the altar and lifted the knife to slay his son, the angel of God called out of heaven to stay his hand. The voice said, now I know that thou fearest me. God demands works. God does demand to see works. So that all of us who profess faith in God, God will presently demand works as evidence of our faith, and it will be useless my turning around to God and saying, but look here, God, now come, come, come, come, come. You say you want to see works as evidence of my faith, but God, you know my heart, you know I'm a believer. Uh, what do you need evidence for? It's not given to us to reply thus to Almighty God. He demands works. We're responsible to provide them. Now I know thou fearest me, not know the Philistines know, or Sarah knows. Now I know that thou fearest me. So that lesson in Genesis, interpreted at the basic ground floor level of history, carries not just a moralistic meaning, but a deeply spiritual meaning, and practical at the same time. The Epistle to the Hebrews in chapter eleven quotes that so same story, does it not? This time, not just to repeat what James is saying, but to explain to us what justification by faith is all about. It is not, is it, now you profess to be a believer, now do a few things like visiting the sick out of compassion, though that may be involved. Justification by works. Its significance is seen, as Hebrews eleven pointed out. Abraham was there ascending the mountain, about to offer Isaac his son, in whom were all the promises of God. All his future depended on it, on Isaac. He had believed God while as yet Sarah was barren. He had believed God when he was now decrepit and past being a father. And his faith in God had been the means of his justification. And his faith now was in the promises of God, how not? But was it? If God had come to Abram and said, Abram, now when it comes to the future and all those growing promises that I've made you, where is your faith for those things placed? What would Abram have said? Placed in Isaac, Abram, by any chance? Or in me? And Abram, through his beard, would have said, oh, in you, Lord, of course. What, in me only? Well, yes. Right, Abram. You'll give me Isaac, won't you? The works were required to show that the faith, as at the beginning, so now, was in God and God only. There lies a lesson for us as life progresses. The faith that we exercised in God for salvation at the beginning will eventually be tested. Our faith for everything must be in God. God. And therefore, Hebrews six climaxes that particular lesson when it lets us see that it was after Abraham had offered Isaac on the altar that he received the oath and the word of God confirmed by that oath and that tremendous blessing, surely blessing I will bless thee and multiplying I will multiply thee. Having endured, he received the blessing and the promise. You'll notice when it came, not in Genesis fifteen when first he was justified, but in Genesis twenty two when by his works he had shown his faith was in God alone. And we are exhorted in that sense to follow his example. For in so doing, we come to a hope, we who have fled for refuge, that is like an anchor to the soul, both sure and steadfast. To stand on the mountain, bereft by our consent of everything else, and stand there with nothing but God. That is the securest place in the whole universe. For if our faith for security must be in God plus something else, that something else will crumble into dust. So here are three scriptures in the New Testament that take that story at its, what I call its ground floor level. And just as Abraham was justified by faith, literally so, that isn't a type of anything. That's a legal precedent. Applies to us all. If he was justified that way, so must we all be justified by faith. So in being justified by works is likewise a legal precedent that shows us how God will lead us likewise. Did you say, what's happened to the typology? Are you telling us now that you, you mustn't take the story of Abraham and Isaac, uh, as a picture of the father giving the son as a sacrifice at Calvary? Well, if we dare to say it, we should be excommunicated from our assembly. No, I'm not meaning that at all. But now, of course, the fact that that story is a story about justification by works does not cancel out its typical meaning, or had I better say, its prototypical meaning. In fact, the importance of this prototype of the sacrifice of Christ is only seen to its full significance when we see it is in the context of justification by works. If you remember it, you've no need to turn to the passage, but if you have little doubts, and then turn to Genesis twenty two. I'm still bearing in mind what I said about the, the, the Good Samaritan. But this is a point of some hermeneutical importance as we come to a book like Chronicles. What do I mean by saying we shall run into trouble if we don't first start at the ground floor of history? We should notice from a literary point of view how the story is told us in Genesis twenty two. Abraham is called to take his son, goes to the mountain, builds the altar, binds Abraham- Isaac on the altar, you'll see. Verse ten says, and Abraham stretched forth his hand and took the knife to slay his son. When the angel of the Lord called out of him unto heaven, uh, from heaven and spoke to him, verses eleven and twelve. But now notice that the angel eventually spoke again, verse fifteen. But the angel of the Lord called unto heaven a second time out of heaven. Pray, why didn't he speak it all at once? Hm. Saved a little time, wouldn't he? Get it over with. Why twice? With an interval. And what happened in the interval? Something very important happened. Verse twelve, The angel is completing his first message, and he said, lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou anything unto him, for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son, from me. And Abram lifted up his eyes and looked. Follow the drama of the piece, if you can, in your imagination. Here was Abram, and he had lifted up his hand to slay the son. You say, where was he looking at that moment? Looking straight down to his son bound on that altar, and where and at what particular point he was about to plunge that knife? Looking down. When the angel of the Lord spoke, and Abram looked up. And the angel said, uh, don't lay your hand upon the child. Now I know that thou fearest God because you have not withheld your son from me. And in looking up, he looked around and saw there was a ram caught by the thicket in his horn. And Abram went and took the ram and offered him up for a burnt offering in the place of his son. So now a very interesting thing becomes to light. God had said to Abram, take your son and offer him up as a burnt offering. Offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of. Now the angel calls out of heaven and says, don't lay your hand on him. But notice what the angel doesn't say. It doesn't say, Abram, you know, that sacrifice that God called for, he didn't really mean it. Aren't you glad, Abram? Didn't really mean it. Doesn't want any sacrifice, Abram. Go, go home, man. No, no. The sacrifice of burnt offering from Abraham had to be completed, not aborted. Surely God was testing Abraham and saw his heart, but the sacrifice had to be completed and was completed. Before the angel spoke a second time out of heaven and said, by myself have I sworn, saith the Lord, because thou hast done this thing and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son, that in blessing I will bless thee. What then is the significance of this fact that the sacrifice was completed? You say that Abram offered up that sacrifice of the ram as a thanksgiving that his son was spared. No, he didn't. Pray, gentlemen, read the text. He offered him up for a burnt offering in the place of his son. So that the sacrifice of burnt offering had to be complete, but was completed in the body of a substitute. That gentleman was important for Abram, it could be more important for us too. God demands our works as evidence of our faith. What standard does he require? You say, yeah, he wants deeds, but to what extent? Will fifty percent do? Or seventy five? Offer him for a burnt offering. We all of us know what that meant. The whole of the thing offered to God. Matching the requirement of the law, thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, mind, soul, and strength. If that be the standard required. And I as a believer, am required by God to demonstrate before God by my works that my faith is genuine. Pray, what standard will content God? Now you may ask another question, as I ask myself, where in all this could I possibly stand? For as our blessed Lord observed to the apostles whose strength gave out in Gethsemane, the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak. How often have we call- had cause to lament that in the presence of God? Sure, he knows our hearts. Sure, he asks for evidence. But what one of us gentlemen would say that the evidence since we have been converted has been a hundred percent? Where should we be? In this context of justification by works. If the sacrifice demanded, depended simply upon us. In Abraham's case, the sacrifice was completed, not aborted, completed in the body of a substitute. So must it be with us. For God does look upon our hearts, demands our works. But thank God for a sacrifice of a substitute that covers the shortfall of the sacrifice in our personal obedience. So, excuse that long, uh, sermon. Promise I shan't do anything like it hereafter. But, uh, you'll see, it was meant to illustrate what will be an important principle in our interpretation of First and Second Chronicles. Yes, of course. We shall find all kinds of things that, as prototypes, point us to our New Testaments, to our Lord, to the church, which is his body, and the eternal dwelling place of God. But we should be wise, first of all, to try to understand it at the historical level. Otherwise, we could get ourselves into muddles of various kinds. When following our prototypical line, we found it didn't always fit in with the context. Good. That explained, uh, experience now in our studies will explain the rest. So just let me, uh, remind you what what you already know, of course, uh, five these books were written during the post-exilic period, and in the first place for the benefit of those who had returned from exile in Babylon with according, in accordance with Cyrus' decree. And therefore, an understanding of Ezra, Nehemiah, and the three post-exilic prophets will be exceedingly helpful. Similarly, we should remember what possibly was still in the future for those returned exiles, namely the fearful persecution under Antiochus Epiphanes, who did for the temple what no other pagan emperor had hitherto done. Nebuchadnezzar had destroyed the temple, that was bad enough. Antiochus Epiphanes didn't destroy it, he did something worse. He placed the abomination that makes desolate in the most holy place itself. And these returned exiles would wa- uh, or their descendants would one day have to weather that particular storm. Would be difficult, particularly when the high priests in the nation sided with Antiochus of Bithynes and would have persecuted those who wish to be loyal to their traditional Old Testament faith. We must have our eye on that. How would First and Second Chronicles have helped the, uh, people of that time? Time. Similarly, in differences, a chap- uh, section seven of these little preliminary remarks points out the obvious. In one sense, Solomon's tabernacle was like, uh, Solomon's temple was like the tabernacle of Moses. Both were built as a dwelling place for God. What will be helpful to us is if you bring your knowledge of tabernacle to Chronicles, and then not be tempted too much to talk about the tabernacle, but to see the difference between the temple and the tabernacle. That is crucial to what Chronicles has to say. As to the historical thing, when we come to the genealogies, as we ought to do this afternoon, um, we have to try and understand what they contribute to this book. To help us do that, we shall consider, of course, which two tribes occupy the largest place in these chapters. But in addition to that, we ought to notice that the genealogies seem to give us grounds for thinking that the genealogies do not come up to the time of David and stop there, nor do they come up to the exile and stop there. Some of the genealogies are going right on into the post-exilic period. Why would a writer do that? Why, if he's going to start his history by talking about Saul and then David, would he bring the genealogies right up, almost contemporary with his readers? If any of you preachers have any ever, ever done any such thing in your exposition, say, of the New Testament, and extended Matthew's genealogies down to your grandfather, aha, you'll see, ha, you might, uh, be pleased to tell us why you ever did conceive of doing such a thing. That would be a certain point, wouldn't it? They weren't just ancient history to the people for whom these books were written, but their present history, or their, uh, history, just the immediate past, or granddad and his great granddad, was linked to the great purpose of God in the whole of the history of the world. It's a very important thing to get into our own heads and to see our own little lives, you know. Not in the context merely of me and my, and perhaps my father, who was a believer, if he was, thank God. To see our own lives in this context of the history of all the redeemed from Adam onwards, what the purposes of God have been in the long centuries of history that lead up to us. Good? Uh, well, more than that, I, I do not need to say on those particular lines. Uh, the rest of those fourteen notes, I think, are self-explanatory. So if you care to come to some observations made page four, on the books themselves. And doubtless you have given thought to these things also, so I may be brief. Some trajectories of the two books. Now, this is an important concept, as I understand hermeneutics, and particularly of literary and historical books. Old Aristotle was a wise old bird. He's not approved of necessarily by modern literary critics, Josie, but he had some sensible things to say. He talked in the analysis, say, of a Greek tragedy or a book of poetry like Homer, of the action of the work, by which he did not mean all the activity described in it, but the one great action that begins at the beginning and goes on to the end and finds its logical conclusion in the end. That's what he meant by saying that the work of literature, framed the proper way, has a beginning, a middle, and an end, which at first sight doesn't seem to be profound. But then when you listen to some preachers, you can see the wisdom of A- Aristotle. Ha. The beginning is a sort of a logical place to begin. Uh, uh, uh, uh, the middle is a bit that leads on logically from the beginning, but isn't an end, and therefore must add something afterwards. And the end must follow logically from the middle. And when it's ended, it's got to be ended. Not like some preacher who ends five times in one sermon. Says finally as many times as he can. It will say this idea of an actionary trajectory of a book can be very helpful, even when applied to biblical books. What is the book about? From beginning to end. How does it get from the beginning to the end? Where, in fact, does it start? And where it ends, is that just where it had it lost, he hadn't any more material, so he packed up? Or is it deliberately written as one whole? And if one looks at the first two books, there I have put it for you, and doubtless you've seen it yourself many times. Chronicles, First Chronicles begins with Adam, the first man. It is unusual in the historical books by the phrase it uses at twenty nine verse twenty three. One Chronicles twenty nine verse twenty three: Then Solomon sat on the throne of the Lord as king instead of David, his father, and prospered. And all Israel obeyed. Then Conoco sat upon the throne of the Lord. It's open to question what exactly that means, that phrase, he sat on the throne of the Lord. Not meaning the throne in heaven, obviously. Does it mean the throne that the Lord provided or something. There it is, at any rate, unusual, except there's another place in Chronicles that uses a similar thing. Man sitting on the throne of the Lord. How do you get... by what stages do you come from Adam, the first man on earth, to a point where a man sits on the throne of the Lord. It's worth asking that of the first book of Chronicles. By what kind of movements, experiences, examinations, by what steps do you come from the man, first man, to the point where man sits on the throne of the Lord? That becomes relevant in history, but now, of course, to us immediately, it becomes relevant at our level. We have our Lord's own authority for it, the Revelation three twenty one: To him that overcometh, I will give to sit with me on my throne, even as I overcame and have sat down on my Father's throne. These are breathtaking words. For if there was a stage in history, starting with Adam, where man sat on the throne of the Lord, a throne that was in some sense the throne of the Lord. That prototype fades into the background as we consider the fact that as we sit here today, gentlemen, a man, a real man, as human as we are human except for our sin, is actually sitting on the throne of the Lord over the whole universe. Our Christian gospel is a gigantic thing. Oh God, help us never to lose the wonder. The fantastic wonder. Preach morality, of course, my brothers. But there's something in, in the gospel bigger than morality. But when we get home to glory, questions of morality won't arise as they arise now, will they? You're going to behave, my brother, when you get there. To need not to question your morality. But these wonders won't cease. And what a gospel this is for mankind. We are not the product, product of accidental, mindless, purposeless forces. We are created of God, and in his redemptive purposes, not only is our blessed Lord man seated upon the throne of God, but here is his promise, to him that overcomes, I will grant to him to sit on my throne, even as I also overcame and am sat down on my Father's throne. Those words be true, gentlemen. The whole concept and prospect beggars our wildest imagination, but if it be true, we surely need to ask, by what steps shall the likes of you and me arise from being sons of Adam to the point of sharing the very throne of the Messiah. So that if this is the action of First Chronicles, historical and only a prototype as it is, nonetheless it has an immediate lesson to us, the importance of which is overwhelming, and will give energy to our study in seeking out the stages by which, in the first book of Chronicles, you got from Adam, the first man, to the point where man in the form of Solomon sat upon the throne of the Lord. Though that is so, it would perhaps be true to say that this topic is not the first big topic of First Chronicles, though it is part of it. For if one comes to the zenith of the book, the last stage of First Chronicles and the beginning of Second Chronicles. Then you will find there at great length what the very heart and summit of the book is. For the last, the fifth section of First Chronicles is the account of the preparations that David made for the building of the temple of God. As we said, and to that we shall have to recur, building the temple was somewhat different from building the tabernacle. The temple was not a portable shrine where God was pleased to dwell as he walked through the wilderness with Israel. The temple was the end of the journey, when all planned up to that point had been fulfilled, and God himself entered into his rest. This was goal achieved. Time to take the staves out of the ark. Journeys end, but not to end with some setting sun like some missionary's film. Uh, but uh, journeys end with the rising sun. A sun that shall never set. God entered into his rest. That in itself is a very big prototype. But you'll say the se- the first section of the second book is not just a preparation, it is the actual fulfillment. The first book is preparation. The second book is fulfillment and achievement. But what of the temple itself? Now here, of course, gentlemen, as you know well, under the instruction of your New Testament, here is one of the major purposes that has resided in the heart of God from eternity. That God should have a dwelling place inside creation. Let me emphasize that preposition, inside creation. We are neither Hindus nor Buddhists. We believe that God existed before creation. We are not pantheists, at least I hope we're not. Creation isn't God. Not true to say that everything is God. That is false. In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth, but he was there before the beginning. In the beginning, the word already was. And God created the great u- uh, uh, universe, and if there be any others, he created them as well. The question is, how could Almighty God, transcendent and infinite, get inside his creation to perceive the difficulty. When Solomon at last stood at the inauguration of the temple, he himself perceived the problem. He was a theologian in his way, was Solomon, and having done his best to build a house that was magnificent. Yet he shook his royal head and said, will God indeed dwell in this house that I have made? He said, the heavens of the heavens can't contain him. How do you get the infinite in the finite? That was God's problem. The temple was the prototype, as a permanent temple, the first expression of this great eternal purpose of God. It was only a prototype. The reality is yet to be. We know what it is, of course. But we've all read our Ephesians, have we not? Such tremendous stuff. No wonder when you arrive at Ephesians three uh, and open the prison door and look inside, you'll find Paul dancing around the cell. Ha! He's been given the privilege of announcing this to the Gentiles even. This great secret purpose of God, to have a dwelling place of God through the Spirit. The building work is already going on. In some sense, you are already, he says, a building, a dwelling place of God, but the building is in under construction and is going on. The day will come when the stop top stone has been placed, and it shall be complete. That doesn't lessen either the mystery or the wonder of it. You are proposing, gentlemen, to be a dwelling place of God. Well, you answer me the question. How will you get the infinite in the finite? I don't mind how many redeemed there are. You can multiply as many millions and billions and trillions as you like. They'll still be finite, won't they? How will you ever be a suitable and worthy, capable dwelling place for Almighty God. No wonder there was a little bit of a fuss in the prototype as to who was going to build it. You remember all that, won't you? Well, we shall come across it if you don't remember it. How David would have given his right hand and the left hand as well for the privilege of building that temple. He wasn't allowed to, but it was told him that he should have a son, and of that son it would be true. I will be a father to him, and he shall be my son. That prophecy and promise was fulfilled at one level in Solomon, but found a bigger fulfillment that God had always had in mind when there was born into our world a descendant of Solomon, but of him in the absolute sense it was true that God was his father, and he was none less. And the Son of God, he shall build the temple, is already building it, gentlemen, and one day it shall be complete, and therein is your problem solved. For the blessed Son of God, though human, who will have a body for all eternity, is the Son of God, and the Son of God is infinite. And God is in him, and he in us. These are some of the lessons that await us in the first book of Chronicles. Twenty-minute break.