Did God really choose Solomon to build his Temple?

[topher694]

Reread my posts.



This is ad hominem.

Exactly. Since all I did was rephrase what you said to others I couldn't agree more. Your post was ad hominem. You were accusing the person of being stuck in tradition simply because they disagreed with you. The next step is repentance.

 

[Clare73]

Madam, please read the scriptures I just quoted.

I understand there are times in scripture that what was said historically is recorded in holy writ... which does not always mean what was said is true. The letter in Acts 23 making Claudius Lysias out to be some sort of hero rescuing Paul when Paul clearly had to invoke his right as a citizen of Rome to stop the Romans from beating him to get answers (or for making the Jews upset on his watch).

Certain passages record the pagan nations around Israel claimed God is the god of the hills (only)...

In the text in question (2 Samuel 7) Nathan the prophet told David to do whatever was in his mind (about building the Temple) but God resent Nathan to tell David he was not the man to build his Temple.

I have a very high view and love of scripture and am trying to point out the truth in it versus the traditions of man which Christ himself said make scripture null and void (Mark 7:13) and make even the worship of him a waste of time (Mark 7:7).

I'm surprised by the attacks on me personally for pointing out what the scriptures mean (by scripture cross reference and not my opinion at all) by people who apparently love tradition / traditional interpretation above all else.

You are in no position to declare that David's son building the temple was a misinerpretation by David, rather than it being both

a foreshadow of Christ (also David's son) in David's begotten son, Solomon, the King who built the true temple of God, the Church (such foreshadows not being uncommon in the OT),

as well as God's instruction for David's immediate son to build the temple.

It's not either/or, it's both/and.

Your interpretation of the Biblical account as David being wrong in telling Solomon to build the temple is without Biblical basis.

 

[swainkas]

There is no doubt King David was convinced Solomon was God's choice:

1 Chronicles 22:6 (AV)
6 Then he called for Solomon his son, and charged him to build an house for the LORD God of Israel.

But the only text that appears to support this is:

1 Chronicles 28:6 (AV)
6 And he said unto me, Solomon thy son, he shall build my house and my courts: for I have chosen him to be my son, and I will be his father.

But this reads more like a Simon says... or David's interpretation of:

2 Samuel 7:12–14 (AV)
12 And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom.
13 He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever.
14 I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men:

David's interpretation of this passage grew to:

1 Chronicles 28:3 (AV)
3 But God said unto me, Thou shalt not build an house for my name, because thou hast been a man of war, and hast shed blood.

And:

1 Chronicles 22:7–11 (AV)
7 And David said to Solomon, My son, as for me, it was in my mind to build an house unto the name of the LORD my God:
8 But the word of the LORD came to me, saying, Thou hast shed blood abundantly, and hast made great wars: thou shalt not build an house unto my name, because thou hast shed much blood upon the earth in my sight.
9 Behold, a son shall be born to thee, who shall be a man of rest; and I will give him rest from all his enemies round about: for his name shall be Solomon, and I will give peace and quietness unto Israel in his days.
10 He shall build an house for my name; and he shall be my son, and I will be his father; and I will establish the throne of his kingdom over Israel for ever.
11 Now, my son, the LORD be with thee; and prosper thou, and build the house of the LORD thy God, as he hath said of thee.

But the actual meaning of 2 Samuel 7:12-14 is:

Zechariah 6:12–13 (AV)
12 And speak unto him, saying, Thus speaketh the LORD of hosts, saying, Behold the man whose name is The BRANCH; and he shall grow up out of his place, and he shall build the temple of the LORD:
13 Even he shall build the temple of the LORD; and he shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule upon his throne; and he shall be a priest upon his throne: and the counsel of peace shall be between them both.

• Solomon as never truly the Son of God
• Solomon was never a Priest
• Solomon's name was never the Branch (Netzar / Nazarene)
• Solomon's kingdom did not last forever

God's house in the time of David was the tabernacle God instructed Moses to build in the wilderness wandering.

Hebrews 8:5 (AV)
5 Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.

Notice the absence of the stone dead temple Solomon built. And he broke nearly every Levitical sacrificial law in its dedication.

Now the Temple was in fact the means in which God dealt with Israel since it was built despite God's intention that his Temple would be built by the Messiah (Zechariah 6:12-13) and that Temple would be the living Church (1 Corinthians 3:16) in Christ's Kingdom that lasts forever and ever. God condescended to deal with Israel in the Old Covenant through the temple Solomon built. And from that point onward, Israel was rarely in good standing with God.

Read 1 Samuel 8 to see another example of God condescending to the will of man in the monarchy. Note also God's warning about what the people would endure once they had a king...

I agree with you for the most part. David changed the wording of Nathan the prophet. Then Solomon further changed the quotes of David to more directly relate the prophesy to himself. I covered this topic in chapter 18 of my book Heresy. It is not an interpretation, but a simple and honest reading of the various texts in 2 Samuel 7, 1 Chronicles 22, 29, 1 Kings 7 & 8.

The only thing I wished you had included in your discussion were the words of Christ on this topic of the temple. In John 2:18-21 Jesus claims to be the temple. This furthers your argument that the original prophesy from the mouth of the prophet Nathan in 2 Samuel 7 was about Jesus, not Solomon.

Plus, the original prophesy in 2 Samuel 7 states that God will set up David's Seed after David is dead (vs 12&13). And it is that seed that will build the house for God. Solomon could not be that seed referred to here because his throne was transfered to him while David was still alive, i.e., Solomon was a seed while David was alive, unlike Christ, Who was a Seed of David after he was dead (Jesus was known as the Son of David).

 

[JohnD70X7]

I agree with you for the most part. David changed the wording of Nathan the prophet. Then Solomon further changed the quotes of David to more directly relate the prophesy to himself. I covered this topic in chapter 18 of my book Heresy. It is not an interpretation, but a simple and honest reading of the various texts in 2 Samuel 7, 1 Chronicles 22, 29, 1 Kings 7 & 8.

The only thing I wished you had included in your discussion were the words of Christ on this topic of the temple. In John 2:18-21 Jesus claims to be the temple. This furthers your argument that the original prophesy from the mouth of the prophet Nathan in 2 Samuel 7 was about Jesus, not Solomon.

Plus, the original prophesy in 2 Samuel 7 states that God will set up David's Seed after David is dead (vs 12&13). And it is that seed that will build the house for God. Solomon could not be that seed referred to here because his throne was transfered to him while David was still alive, i.e., Solomon was a seed while David was alive, unlike Christ, Who was a Seed of David after he was dead (Jesus was known as the Son of David).

Thanks!