Why couldn't David build the temple?

[tonychanyt]

1 Chronicles 22:

8 the word of the LORD came to me, saying, ‘You have shed much blood and have waged great wars; you shall not build a house to My name, because you have shed so much blood on the earth before Me.

David was a man of war. He had much blood on his hands. Solomon was a man of peace, 1 Chronicles 22:

9 But you will have a son who will be a man of peace and rest, and I will give him rest from all his enemies on every side. His name will be Solomon, and I will grant Israel peace and quiet during his reign.

The name Solomon (שְׁלֹמֹה) was derived from שָׁלוֹם (shalom) which meant "peace" Solomon didn't shed so much blood.

Why would being a "man of war" prevent David from building the temple of God?

The temple is a type of OT church. The temple symbolizes the church. Benson explained:

Thou hast shed blood, &c.; thou shalt not build a house unto my name — Not that wars are simply unlawful, but to teach us that the church (whereof the temple was an illustrious type) should be built by Christ, the Prince of peace, Isaiah 9:6, and that it should be gathered and built up, not by might or power, but by God’s Spirit, Zechariah 4:6, and by the preaching the gospel of peace. David therefore was less fit for that service, than one who had not been called to such bloody work. Likewise, by setting him aside for this reason, God showed how precious human life is to him.

The church was to be built by Jesus, a man of peace, as prophesied in Isaiah 9:

6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

Jesus would build the church, Matthew 16:

18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

God was not going to use violence to start building his Church. Matthew 5:

9 Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.

Given that David was "a man after God's own heart," why would being a "man of war" matter?

In this case, it mattered because using Solomon to build the temple foreshadowed that God would use Jesus in his first coming to build the church. In his 2nd coming, he would be more like David.

 

[KevinT]

Given that David was "a man after God's own heart," why would being a "man of war" matter?

In this case, it mattered because using Solomon to build the temple foreshadowed that God would use Jesus in his first coming to build the church. In his 2nd coming, he would be more like David.

God is the Prince of Peace, but He also has attributes of war. I'm reading through Jeremiah right now, and the text is quite graphic in the predictions of violence that God was to bring on the countries. But I think God wants to emphasize the peace part and He wanted His temple to be associated with salvation, not destruction. So when I read of David being a man after God's own heart, I take it to mean that that some of David's attributes were good. Just not the part where he had Uriah killed in battle.

KT