David’s address to this gathering is directed to secure these two points. He begins by recalling his own intention to build the Temple and God’s prohibition of it. The reason for that prohibition differs from that alleged by Nathan, but there is no contradiction between the two n...
Show full excerpt
David’s address to this gathering is directed to secure these two points. He begins by recalling his own intention to build the Temple and God’s prohibition of it. The reason for that prohibition differs from that alleged by Nathan, but there is no contradiction between the two narratives, and the chronicler has already reported Nathan’s words { 1 Chronicles 17:3 , etc.}, so that the motive which is ascribed to many of the variations in this book, a priestly desire to exalt Temple and ritual, cannot have been at work here. Why should there not have been a divine communication to David as well as Nathan’s message? That hands reddened with blood, even though it had been shed in justifiable war, were not fitted to build the Temple, was a thought so far in advance of David’s time, and flowing from so spiritual a conception of God, that it may well have been breathed into David’s spirit by a divine voice. Sword in one hand and trowel in the other are incongruous, notwithstanding Nehemiah’s example. The Temple of the God of peace cannot be built except by men of peace. That is true in the widest and highest application. Jesus builds the true Temple. Controversy and strife do not. And, on a lower level, the prohibition is for ever valid. Men do not atone for a doubtful past by building churches, founding colleges, endowing religious or charitable institutions.