DAVID'S HOUSE
God’s intentions are somewhat different from David’s, and in doing so it gives David a clearer view of the truth, the grace, and the plan of God.
The truth (17:4–6) is that, as I have said, a temple to house the ark, the symbol of God’s gracious presence, is strictly unnecessary. Had God wanted such a thing, he would have asked for it; but, in point of fact, at no time between the exodus and the monarchy had he done so.
The house of God was bound up with the house of David in the sense that a representative of the latter would build it. Not only so, but the building of the temple constituted a guarantee of the perpetuity of the Davidic dynasty.
Solomon—and by implication his successors—would be forever supported by God as his patron. His function would be to represent God like a son sent on a mission by his father. The kingdom would thus be not merely Solomon’s. God was to be the real king of Israel. The house of David was to transcend human history, for through it was to shine the kingdom of God.
The Chronicler here adapts his source in 2 Samuel 7:16 to bring out this truth. That which is eternal had stooped down to enter the dimension of time: the kingdom of God had descended to earth. Henceforth the truth that “the Lord reigns” (16:31) would take on new meaning. God would rule in Israel and so in the world not only through the temple but through the Davidic throne. In this light the term “servant,” used of David in verses 4 and 7, leaps into new significance as a vassal king subordinate to his royal Overlord.
vassal
noun
In Gen 28:18 Jacob’s pillow becomes a “pillar,” which he anoints with oil, naming the place Beth-el, “the House of God.” On his return to that place (Gen 35:14) he set up another pillar, pouring out both a drink offering and oil, because God talked with him there and changed his name to “Israel.”
This event in divine revelation was a shining moment in the spiritual history of the people of God. It dealt with themes which in a more advanced form are precious to God’s present people. It represented a milestone in God’s revelation of His will. From a New Testament perspective it pointed forward to Jesus, Son of David, and in nature as well as in function Son of God, and to His fresh establishment of the kingdom of God in fact and in hope. He has provided a temple for us, giving us access to God, so that we may “come boldly to the throne of grace” with our prayers and “by Him offer the sacrifice of praise” to God (Heb. 4:16; 13:15). Despite all the ups and downs of human experience we are in the process of receiving “a kingdom which cannot be shaken” (Heb. 12:28).
This event in divine revelation was a shining moment in the spiritual history of the people of God. It dealt with themes which in a more advanced form are precious to God’s present people. It represented a milestone in God’s revelation of His will. From a New Testament perspective it pointed forward to Jesus, Son of David, and in nature as well as in function Son of God, and to His fresh establishment of the kingdom of God in fact and in hope. He has provided a temple for us, giving us access to God, so that we may “come boldly to the throne of grace” with our prayers and “by Him offer the sacrifice of praise” to God (Heb. 4:16; 13:15). Despite all the ups and downs of human experience we are in the process of receiving “a kingdom which cannot be shaken” (Heb. 12:28).
It is in that light that the New Testament pictures Jesus as the son of David (cf. Matt 1:1) and relates his birth in Bethlehem (Matt 1:6). It is in that faith too that the Church celebrates the rule of Jesus the Christ, whose kingdom will have no end.
The Chronicler was ready to embark on his primary theme—the building of the temple—but certain steps had yet to be taken. The individual who would actually build the temple had to be identified (chap. 17), the political conditions had to be propitious (chaps. 18–20), the precise site had to be chosen (chap. 21), the materials and plans had to be in hand (chaps. 22; 28–29), and the personnel to undertake the proper functioning of the temple had to be selected and authorized (chaps. 23–27).
The present chapter describes David’s desire to build the temple, a desire that failed to receive God’s blessing (17:1–15).
Some interesting political and religious background material from the ancient Near East helps us understand the nature of events in chaps. 17–19.
In Near Eastern thought there was a widely recognized relationship between the earthly kingship and the temple of the protecting deity of the city-state. The state was seen as a reflection of the cosmic reality of the divine government, which stood behind the state. The state, with its various hierarchies, culminated in the earthly kingship at its apex
This was thought to be parallel to a cosmic state of affairs with its own gradations in which the major deity headed a pantheon of lesser deities. The ultimate kingship of the protecting deity was thought to be expressed through, and paralleled by, the empirical kingship exercised by the ruler of the city-state on earth. This concept was given concrete expression in the relationship that existed between the temple of the city-state and the palace of the king of the city-state.
The temple was the earthly residence of the deity, and the palace was the residence of the earthly representative of the deity, that is, the king.
The temple was the earthly residence of the deity, and the palace was the residence of the earthly representative of the deity, that is, the king.
This chapter reminds the reader that the house God builds surpasses any human house however grand it may be and however honorable the motivations were behind its building. This should once again remind us that it is superficial to think of the Chronicler as someone who could not see beyond legal and ceremonial religion.
The place where the temple stood was of paramount importance, for it was the point of contact between two worlds—the city-state and the cosmic state. The city-state was the property of, and under the control of, the deity.