Opus 2026-388: Should-a-Beens: Temple Anarchy

I recently looked into the events and declaration around the building of the temple.  I started in II Chronicles 6 and went all the way back to the building of the Tabernacle.  Part of the impetus of this was the declaration by a Bible teacher that God never told David or Solomon to build the temple. It was not His idea.

That seemed a strange statement, but as you look at the beginnings, you can see that the idea was born in the “heart of David”.  Solomon is speaking,

(2Ch 6:7 KJV)  Now it was in the heart of David my father to build an house for the name of the LORD God of Israel.

It did not come directly from God.

In one of the passages, God even declares that during all of the years of moving in and the wilderness, He never asked them to build him a house of Cedar. 

(2Sa 7:5 KJV)  Go and tell my servant David, Thus saith the LORD, Shalt thou build me an house for me to dwell in?
(2Sa 7:6 KJV)  Whereas I have not dwelt in any house since the time that I brought up the children of Israel out of Egypt, even to this day, but have walked in a tent and in a tabernacle.
(2Sa 7:7 KJV)  In all the places wherein I have walked with all the children of Israel spake I a word with any of the tribes of Israel, whom I commanded to feed my people Israel, saying, Why build ye not me an house of cedar?

Notice the question marks.  The idea was that God was perfectly happy with the tabernacle.  I would say that God’s plan was for a mobile worship center.

We run into a similar issue in the monarchy.  What was God’s original plan for how His people were to be governed?  God wanted to be their king.  The people started to pout and we have this confession,

(1Sa 8:7 KJV)  And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.

Did God always planned on Saul becoming king?  Was a monarchy always in the works?  That depends on whether you’re a Calvinist or not.  No matter what your theology, God is obviously unhappy about it.

Why would God be satisfied with the anarchy of the judges and the mobility of the Tabernacle?

Both the monarchy and the temple speak of a stationary location for the center of power.  The monarchy transfers the focus of power from God Almighty to a king.  The temple ties the presence of God to one location.  Neither one of these was God’s plan.  He conceded them because it seems that the people needed it, or at least wanted it.

Where would we be today in living out God’s plan for humanity if Israel had never had a king and had been content with the Tabernacle?  Interesting thought.  Maybe I will find it interesting again.

homo unius libri

Opus 2024-368: Is God a Literalist?

Does God always speak literally?  Does He ever use figures of speech?  I’m referring to such things as the words “never”, “always,” “forever” and such expressions.

In my every day life my wife likes to say that I “never wipe the counter”.  She likes to say that I “always forget ______.”  I think you get the idea.  Just because I didn’t do it in the five minutes before she gets excited, that means I never did it.  

We all do this.  For some of us hyperbole is a way of life.  That itself is possible hyperbole.

So the question is, “Does God speak this way?”  When He says to David, that the covenant will be forever, does He mean literally forever or figuratively forever?  Take this as one example,

(2Sa 7:16-7 KJV)  And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever.  According to all these words, and according to all this vision, so did Nathan speak unto David.

That would seem straightforward.  What complicates the issue is other places where He seems to put “if” statements into the proclamation.  Here God is talking to Solomon.

(2Ch 7:17-21 KJV)  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; 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.  But if ye turn away, and forsake my statutes and my commandments, which I have set before you, and shall go and serve other gods, and worship them; Then will I pluck them up by the roots out of my land which I have given them; and this house, which I have sanctified for my name, will I cast out of my sight, and will make it to be a proverb and a byword among all nations.  And this house, which is high, shall be an astonishment to every one that passeth by it; so that he shall say, Why hath the LORD done thus unto this land, and unto this house?  And it shall be answered, Because they forsook the LORD God of their fathers, which brought them forth out of the land of Egypt, and laid hold on other gods, and worshipped them, and served them: therefore hath he brought all this evil upon them.

Solomon is the direct descendant of David.  He is the one to whom the throne must pass.  Notice, though, that with David the “shall be established forever” becomes an “if” statement.  Is God confused?  Does He change His mind?  Or is it simply a figure of speech that everyone who was not committed to a theological position could understand?

Of course this could be another one of those both/and situations rather than either/or.  I don’t have an easy answer but I am aware of the question.

homo unius libri