David fell under great conviction. How was it that he could live in such a great house while God was confined to living in a tent? It was an honorable conviction- with a deep respect for God’s honor. Surely, God would be pleased with such an honorable motive. Imagine David’s surprise, then, when God announced that it would not be David that would build Israel’s temple, but his son Solomon.

The reason that God gives David for this is found in 1 Chronicles 22:8-

“But the LORD said to me, ‘You have killed many men in the battles you have fought. And since you have shed so much blood in my sight, you will not be the one to build a Temple to honor my name.” (NLTse)

Questions immediately come to mind- why would God refuse to let David build the temple for doing what he had commanded David to do? Yes, David had killed many people in war, as the refrain of the song went, “Saul has killed his thousands, and David his tens of thousands!” (1 Samuel 18:7, NLTse). We must remember, however, that this was still a part of the conquest in order to gain the land God had promised. In order to get past this, some commentators have taken this to refer to David’s murder of Uriah, which was sinful. I don’t think this is the case for two reasons: 1) The murder of Uriah hasn’t occurred yet, and 2) This doesn’t fit the language God uses. Now the first reason is not as strong because God obviously knows David’s sins and intentions well in advanced. The second is much stronger, in my opinion. God grounds his command by saying “you have killed many men, and have shed so much blood,” which doesn’t make sense if only a single individual is in view. That still leaves us without an answer however.

I think that Tremper Longman, III, probably gets it right in his book, Immanuel in Our Place: Seeing Christ in Israel’s Worship. In the first section of the book, Longman talks about the idea of “sacred space.” He traces out this idea from Eden to altars, altars to the tabernacle, the tabernacle to the temple, and the temple to Jesus, finally culminating in the new creation. Longman notes that the symbolism in the tabernacle and and temple are the same: the presence of God in the midst of his people.

Even with all the similarities, there are some differences also. A main difference between the tabernacle and temple is that the tabernacle is a dwelling that is movable and the temple is a permanent dwelling. The tabernacle was necessarily movable because it traveled with the Israelites in the wilderness, always at the center of the camp. By the time that the temple was finally built, however, the Israelites were well settled in their promised land and functioning as a nation. This is an important point to keep in mind.

Though the conquest of the promised land is articulated primarily in the book of Joshua, history shows us that the land was not fully taken over by the Israelites then (and in reality, ever). That is why David was still fighting as many battles as he did. He was still driving out bands of people that were supposed to be driven out during the conquest. With his many victories, Israel came as close as they would to fulfilling that command. What this means, is that if the conquest was not fulfilled until David, the period of wandering and restlessness was not fulfilled until David. This firmly puts David, though part of the monarchy, in that period. It was that period that was symbolized in the tabernacle. Therefore, the tabernacle was connected to David and his reign which brought the conquest to an end.

The temple, on the other hand, was a permanent dwelling place for the presence of God, which symbolizes Israel’s full settlement of the land. Solomon, David’s son who would build this temple, was a king who was characterized with peace. As David’s battles pointed to the continuation of the conquest, so the peace of Solomon’s reign pointed to the fulfillment of the land promises and the completion of the conquest- in other words, a settlement in the land. Even Solomon’s name points to this. In Hebrew, his name is Shelomo, which is built off of the root sh-l-m. These are the same root letters that make up the word for peace and well being, shalom.

If Longman is correct here, and it’s the best explanation I’ve heard yet, then God’s refusal of David to be the builder of the temple is not ethical in nature. Instead, Longman points out that it is historical-redemptive. It is tied to the progression of Israel, away from conquest and towards settlement- which of course points us eschatalogically to the New Jerusalem. It is in this New Jerusalem, a city which comes down from heaven and covers the land of the renewed earth, where the presence of God once symbolized in the tabernacle, and then the temple, is no longer symbolized, but a reality. To this, we agree with John in saying, “Amen, come Lord Jesus!” and let the true temple, the One who tabernacled among us (John 1:14) return.