It is not clear in the Oracle of Nathan why David is prohibited from building the temple. In to the proposal is quite all that you have in fact, Nathan’s initial reaction positive: “Go, do mind; for the LORD is with It is only after the word of the LORD came to Nathan at you” (v. 3). night, that the prophet changed his mind. God seems to have two objections to the proposal. The first objection is to the idea of the temple as a permanent structure. From the time of the Exodus God had contented Godself with living in a tent or tabernacle, and God had never asked the tribal leaders (v. 7) to build a temple. The parallel passage in 1 Chr 17:6 states that God had never asked one of the judges to build a temple. The words for tribal leaders and judges are quite similar in Hebrew. To some in Israel building a temple may have been seen to be an attempt to control God or to the proposal to rebuild the temple after the exile is limit God’s freedom. Even met with this is my throne and the earth is my footstool; what is the rhetorical question: “Heaven house that you would build for is also the problem that a temple built by a me” (Isa 66:1)? There king might lead the temple establishment to endorse all the in an unhealthy king’s policies, mixture of church and state. That danger becomes clear in the northern kingdom when Amos is rebuked by the priest Amaziah (Am 7:10-17). Congregations who put too much value on king’s their church building may have an “edifice complex.” But the second objection is to role in building a you the one to David’s temple: “Are build me a house to live in (v. 6)? That too is surprising since Samuel had anointed David to be king, and the southern and northern tribes had anointed him as king in in 2 Samuel 2 and 5. Solomon addressed the question of why David could not build the temple in 1 Kgs 5:3-5,
It is not clear in the Oracle of Nathan why David is prohibited from building the temple. In fact, Nathan’s initial reaction to the proposal is quite positive: “Go, do all that you have in mind; for the LORD is with you” (v. 3). It is only after the word of the LORD came to Nathan at night, that the prophet changed his mind. God seems to have two objections to the proposal. The first objection is to the idea of the temple as a permanent structure. From the time of the Exodus God had contented Godself with living in a tent or tabernacle, and God had never asked the tribal leaders (v. 7) to build a temple. The parallel passage in 1 Chr 17:6 states that God had never asked one of the judges to build a temple. The words for tribal leaders and judges are quite similar in Hebrew. To some in Israel building a temple may have been seen to be an attempt to control God or to limit God’s freedom. Even the proposal to rebuild the temple after the exile is met with this rhetorical question: “Heaven is my throne and the earth is my footstool; what is the house that you would build for me” (Isa 66:1)? There is also the problem that a temple built by a king might lead the temple establishment to endorse all the king’s policies, in an unhealthy mixture of church and state. That danger becomes clear in the northern kingdom when Amos is rebuked by the king’s priest Amaziah (Am 7:10-17). Congregations who put too much value on their church building may have an “edifice complex.” But the second objection is to David’s role in building a temple: “Are you the one to build me a house to live in (v. 6)? That too is surprising since Samuel had anointed David to be king, and the southern and northern tribes had anointed him as king in in 2 Samuel 2 and 5. Solomon addressed the question of why David could not build the temple in 1 Kgs 5:3-5,
2sam%207%20pentecost8.docx