Did God want a Temple in Jerusalem?

When David settled himself in Jerusalem, he brought the ark of the Lord there and gave it shelter under a tent.
Then he had the idea that he should be doing something more.
As he said to Nathan;
“See now, I dwell in a house of cedar, but the ark of God dwells in a tent”.2 Samuel ch7 vv1-2
I’m going to be tracing the Lord’s reaction to this thought, as it develops in the various reports.

Nathan’s first reaction was enthusiastic;
“Go, do all that is in your heart; for the Lord is with you”.
But the sequel shows that this was Nathan’s response, not God’s response.
He was clearly acting on impulse, prompting him to speak in God’s name without checking with God first.

The next morning he had to come back and amend what he said the previous day, following the instructions he was given overnight;
“Go and tell my servant David, Thus says the Lord; Would you build me a house to live in? I have not dwelt in a house since the day I brought up the people of Israel from Egypt to this day. In all the places where I have moved with all the people, did I ever speak a word to any of the judges of Israel…saying ’Why have you not built me a house of cedar?’” 2 Samuel ch7 vv5-7
The import of this rhetorical question is obvious enough.
It means “If I wanted a house of cedar, I would have asked for one.”
It means “Since I did not ask for a house of cedar, that ought to tell you that I don’t need one”.
Yet somehow, in the tradition, that clear rebuff has become permission to build a Temple.

The words that follow are about God’s promise to secure David’s kingdom on a firm foundation, and to establish his dynasty through the descendants of his son.
David hears the promise and prays a prayer of thanksgiving in response.
This exchange is not related to the possibility of a Temple, except at one point.
In the middle of all this talk about establishing the metaphorical “house of David”, there is a brief statement that the son will also “build a house for my name”.
David’s response takes no notice of that statement. He might as well not have heard it. 2 Samuel ch7 vv8-29

The next version of the report comes in the speech which Solomon makes at the dedication of the Temple- 1 Kings ch8 vv17-19.
He says “Now it was in the heart of David my father to build a house for the name of the Lord”.
Yes, that’s the clear implication of what David said to Nathan.
But then he quotes the Lord’s response as “You did well that it was in your heart”.
That isn’t exactly what we found in the story in 2 Samuel.
It seems that Solomon is taking Nathan’s original reaction at face value as the Lord’s answer, and ignoring the correction that was made the following morning.
An example of the way that people hear what they want to hear.
Finally Solomon repeats the statement that the son of David “shall build a house for my name”.
The implication is that David won’t have built the house first, so Solomon’s version makes this part of what the Lord says.- “You shall not build it”.

The last of the reports (in order of writing) and the most elaborate comes in 1 Chronicles.
This takes us back to the reign of David.
The starting-point is the purchase of the threshing-floor, which is the last event in 2 Samuel.
As far as the Chronicler is concerned, it is David who then begins collecting together all the building materials necessary for the Temple; that is, the stone, the iron, the bronze and the cedar.
He also calls Solomon to his presence, giving him the task of building a house for the Lord, and then offers him a third version of the original episode (1 Chronicles ch22).

“I had it in my heart to build a house to the name of the Lord my God”.
This puts into David’s mouth what Solomon said about him in 1 Kings.
But then the word of the Lord is reported as;
“You shall not build a house for my name, because you have shed so much blood before me upon the earth”.
This amplifies the brief “You shall not build the house” found in 1 Kings, finding a reason for the command.
It all helps to get round the awkward point that David thought about building a house but did not build it himself.
In 2 Samuel, the son who would build the house was left nameless. Very appropriately, because it wasn’t clear at that stage which of the sons of David would succeed him. His elder sons, like Amnon and Absolom, were still alive, and Solomon had not yet been born.
The Chronicler follows that account when he first reports the original conversation with Nathan.
Yet in this later chapter he adds the name of Solomon, calling him a man of peace, to the original statement that the son “shall build a house for my name”.
Finally, David commands the leaders of Israel to help Solomon build the sanctuary.

The Chronicle returns to this topic later (chs28-29).
At the end of his life, David calls together an assembly of the officials and military men of the kingdom.
He repeats the Lord’s message, as he told it to Solomon, and identifies Solomon himself as the son chosen by God to succeed him and build the house for God’s name.
Then he hands over to Solomon a complete written plan of the future Temple building and all its ritual furniture.
On the following day, there is a great sacrifice, after which Solomon is formally anointed king and takes over the throne while his father is still alive.

It has to be said that this account of a great ceremonial assembly contradicts, and is contradicted by, the story in 1 Kings ch1.
What 1 Kings describes is an untidy, panic-driven scramble for power while David has withdrawn to his death-bed.
At the time when Solomon is being anointed, by Zadok the priest, nearly all the royal officials are feasting with his rival Adonijah on the other side of the valley.
Wearing my “student of history” hat, I believe the version in 1 Kings.
It seems to me that the writer of the account in 1 Kings, who was closer to the events, is describing what happened.
While the Chronicler is describing what he thinks should have happened, in an ideal world.
He represents the culmination of a process in which the story has been elaborated, in priestly circles, to promote the importance of the Temple as endorsed by David and by the Lord God.

We were told in 1 Samuel that the people wanted to have a king, “like all the nations”.
God thought it was a bad idea, but gave way and let them have one.
I think the Temple is the same story, all over again.
The Temple was built because the kings and the people they led wanted to build one.
Once again, one of the motives would have been the example of other nations;
“A god who lives in a tent? How primitive!”
God had not asked for anything of the kind, but he acquiesced.
Perhaps with an implicit deep sigh and an “If you must…”

Was the Temple good value, in the long-term?
There would be entries on both sides of the balance-sheet.
It provided a central focus for the religion of the Lord.
It was the original setting where the collection of Psalms was built up.
On the other hand…
It focussed attention, necessarily, on the sacrificial aspect of religion.
This was really a second-best approach to the problem of sin. God makes it clear elsewhere that he would have preferred them to be following his laws, instead of offering sacrificial fines for not following them.
And the central focus developed into a fierce monopoly, at the expense of the best interests of the faith.

I suspect, therefore, that the Lord was not aggrieved, but almost relieved, when the last Temple fell to the Romans.

why would God want a temple lol.

Doesn't he like roam the Earth as he wishes. Rather than say. Dwell in one place.
The Tent should be evident he does not give a Bleep. As tents are used to travel. Chronologically from the story. it seems he enjoy that a lot more.

Only thing i personally don't like about tents is the lack of availability to shower or bathe. But i guess if i were to bring a bag of salts i could use that instead lol. And just find a river. Only it would suck if there wasn't a river nearby.

I don't think i would be the only one who thinks this way so it's likely why the god loves salts as well too. Because of the literal purification.

a reply to: AnuTyr
Exactly.
Even Solomon admitted as much in his opening speech;
"The highest heaven cannot contain thee; how much less this house which I have built" (1 Kings ch8 v27).
Temples are things that humans can relate to and focus upon.

a reply to: DISRAELI

seems so i never really understood it. In my oppinion if i could built a temple i wouldn't lol. The world is my temple and anywhere can become a *Ritual* place.

There isn't any one specific place i would like to be. But i wouldn't mind visiting Egypt. Or the rest of the world lol.

As for God i could imagine being in his shoes and being like... * Nah i kinda wanna disappear on my spaceship and scope the rest of the planet. It's bad enough you guys are making lurk on the surface carrying me in boxlike basket lol. I wana fly around and judge and play tricks on people to teach them lessons not dwell within a room so people can gawk at me*

Just what i think is going on in his head.

a reply to: AnuTyr
On the other hand, the Biblical God seems to be patient and accomodating and willing to allow them to have things they can understand.
If they feel they need to have a Temple in order to have a sense of being in his presence, then let them have one, for the moment.
The idea that God is everywhere is one that he can gradually introduce later.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Yeah but how long does that pacience last? Not very long before hes stripping solomon of his power and threatening to destroy the Temple he built using Angels of the Lord to do it. So yeah eventually they got around to it. Only, God had other plans and decided you know what soloman, you can have that *Temple*. Lol. That's pretty much what happened chronologically. Since then people have only been promising to build a temple, God himself as far as i can see in the Old Testament really makes no mention of wanting one built again, But goes on a killing spree and starts threatening multipul nations including Israel because of the hilariousness of their ambitions to bunker down God.

a reply to: AnuTyr
I'm sure any attempt to rebuild a Temple in modern times would be a retro-grade step.
A complete misunderstanding of what he wanted.

a reply to: DISRAELI

If the temple can move place to place and they were to build something like that today. He might consider it. But then again. His own crystal throne is probably going to be a lot better than anything a person can make considering all temples built by humans are rooted into the ground. Coming from a Guy who lurks in the skies and flies through the heavens i highly doubt such an individual would want to sit somewhere, Unless that somewhere was moving.

a reply to: DISRAELI

It does seem as though Adonai granted the Jews permission to build both the first and second Temple for their sake and not His. As you state from Scripture this request was very similar to their request for a King.

The Good Lord seems to have been very much happy with camping out in a tent. He took away His permission and brought both Temples to ruin as punishment.

It is a mighty unique phenomenon. Both Temples seemed to have lasted for approx. 400 years. As we know a Mosque sits upon Mt. Moriah upon The Holy of Holies. The Messiah Gate of the Old City is shut up and has been since 1530AD;

"A little background on the East gate of Jerusalem: The East gate was walled up by it's Muslim conquerors (the Ottoman Turks) in 1530 A.D. Notice also the cemetery that has been planted in front of it. Many believe this was done to prevent the entrance of the Jewish Messiah through that gate as was foretold by known Old Testament prophecies. However, Ezekiel prophesied the shutting of this gate itself around 600 B.C. -- that it would be shut "because the LORD (Jehovah or Yahweh), the God of Israel, hath entered in by it, therefore it shall be shut." "

Many Christians believe that what Jesus said;

Matthew 23:37-39New International Version (NIV)

37 “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing. 38 Look, your house is left to you desolate. 39 For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’[a]”,

is a prophesy that Jerusalem will not see The Messiah until they acknowledge Him.

How interesting that archaeology reflect Prophesy in such a synchronised way.

The Prophets stun me with their accuracy.

I have been to The Old City. I walked carefully through the cemetery without walking on the graves, jumped the railings and touched the gate post. I caused a bit of a scene; the Muslims did not like it and I was questioned when leaving the cemetery.

I am utterly fascinated with Jerusalem. Thanks for your very well reasoned thread.



There is a prophesy in the New Testament that Jesus will descend upon The Mount Of Olives and walk through The Messiah Gate into the area of The Temple.

Third time lucky I say!

a reply to: lonesomerimbaud
Thank you for the information about the gate, which is very enlightening.
The localised Temple had very mixed effects. The fame of it helped to spread the knowledge of God through the world, but the insistence on limiting worship to one place was holding him back.

a reply to: AnuTyr

Since you mentioned it. I would point out there is a OT prophecy about building a 3rd temple. According to Zechariah 6 there are 2 branches. And each branch has the responsibility of building a temple. There is still one temple to go.

a reply to: ntech
I think you forget that the world-wide body of Christ IS the Temple of God.
"Do you not know that you are God's Temple and that God's Spirit dwells in you?" 1 Corinthians ch3 v16
"You" is in the plural. All of them together = 1 Temple, a place where God lives.
Prophecy fulfilled.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Not quite

yes the body is a temple but as is all physical things have a spiritual or meta physical side to them.

We very often fail to relate the spiritual aspect to things in our everyday lives

Every thread and debate has a spiritual side that is most often ignored of unknown to us

a reply to: deadeyedick
You are probably thinking of the other passage where Paul says the individual body is a temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians ch6 v19).
In ch3 v16, he's talking about the whole community as the place where the Spirit dwells (the community being a kind of building), which is a more spiritual picture.

a reply to: DISRAELI

no that was not part of my reasoning.

a reply to: DISRAELI


If you look into the matter a bit further there is a problem. The branches of Zechariah are also the witnesses of Revelation. Simply put the 2nd witness of Revelation has yet to build his temple.

a reply to: ntech
I'm afraid I don't see that identication.
I know there's reference in Zechariah to king and priest, but my understanding is that Christ himself covers them both.

a reply to: DISRAELI

According to Zechariah the way the top hierarchy in heaven works like this. At the top is the Lord of Hosts. Just below him is the Lord. And just below them are the 2 branches. God's personal assistants.

Zechariah 4
2 And said unto me, What seest thou? And I said, I have looked, and behold a candlestick all of gold, with a bowl upon the top of it, and his seven lamps thereon, and seven pipes to the seven lamps, which are upon the top thereof:
3 And two olive trees by it, one upon the right side of the bowl, and the other upon the left side thereof.
11 Then answered I, and said unto him, What are these two olive trees upon the right side of the candlestick and upon the left side thereof?
12 And I answered again, and said unto him, What be these two olive branches which through the two golden pipes empty the golden oil out of themselves?
13 And he answered me and said, Knowest thou not what these be? And I said, No, my lord.
14 Then said he, These are the two anointed ones, that stand by the LORD of the whole earth.

Zechariah 6
9 And the word of the LORD came unto me, saying'
10 Take of them of the captivity, even of Heldai, of Tobijah, and of Jedaiah, which are come from Babylon, and come thou the same day, and go into the house of Josiah the son of Zephaniah;
11 Then take silver and gold, and make crowns, and set them upon the head of Joshua the son of Josedech, the high priest;
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.
14 And the crowns shall be to Helem, and to Tobijah, and to Jedaiah, and to Hen the son of Zephaniah, for a memorial in the temple of the LORD.
15 And they that are far off shall come and build in the temple of the LORD, and ye shall know that the LORD of hosts hath sent me unto you. And this shall come to pass, if ye will diligently obey the voice of the LORD your God.


There are 2 branches. And according to verses 12 and 13 each of them will build a temple. And Revelation says this about the branches as well.

Revelation 11
3 And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth.
4 These are the two olive trees, and the two candlesticks standing before the God of the earth.
5 And if any man will hurt them, fire proceedeth out of their mouth, and devoureth their enemies: and if any man will hurt them, he must in this manner be killed.
6 These have power to shut heaven, that it rain not in the days of their prophecy: and have power over waters to turn them to blood, and to smite the earth with all plagues, as often as they will.
7 And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them.
8 And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.
9 And they of the people and kindreds and tongues and nations shall see their dead bodies three days and an half, and shall not suffer their dead bodies to be put in graves.
10 And they that dwell upon the earth shall rejoice over them, and make merry, and shall send gifts one to another; because these two prophets tormented them that dwelt on the earth.
11 And after three days and an half the spirit of life from God entered into them, and they stood upon their feet; and great fear fell upon them which saw them.
12 And they heard a great voice from heaven saying unto them, Come up hither. And they ascended up to heaven in a cloud; and their enemies beheld them.

The branches of Zechariah are the witnesses of Revelation. And if Matthew 24-15 is an event of the end times as Jesus Christ appears to be implying then there is a need for the 3rd temple to be built. However it isn't clear if it will survive the Apocalypse or be present during the thousand year reign of the saints. It could. It's just not clearly stated it would.

a reply to: ntech
The prophecy of Zechariah has two applications, one for his own time and one for the New Testament period.

Considering first the application for his own time.
It isn't difficult to detect that the two "anointed ones" for his own time are the king and the high priest, who were both anointed on being inducted into office.
That is to say, the prince Zerubbabel (who was notionally the Davidic king, though the Persian overlords would not have allowed the title), and the high priest Joshua.
It is evident
a) that king and high priest are in office at the same time
b) the Lord's intention for them is that they should work together to build the ONE temple.
And this instruction and prophecy were in fact fulflled.They built the temple which Herod re-modelled and the Romans destroyed.

The idea that they should build a temple each is not in the text. It is not what happened when temples were built in Israel; Solomon and his own high priest did not build separate temples, but co-operated in the building of their one temple.
If king and high priest have different functions within the temple, then one temple is enough. They don't need to build one each.

We can find "king and priest" in the New Testament in two different ways.
First, Christ himself is both king and priest.
Secondly, we find the declaration in Revelation, about those redeemed in Christ, that God has "made them kings and priests [or "a kingdom and priests] to our God, and they shall reign on earth" (ch5 v10).
If Christ and the church in Christ are "kings and priests", I don't think we have to look any further for the "anointed ones".
My understanding of the two witnesses, as I outlined it in my own thread on the subject, is that they are not two physical individuals at all, but they represent the witnessing church as a whole.
The church are symbolised by two individuals because it is performing two double functions.
Apart from being "kings and priests", it is combining the work of Moses (standing up against oppression) with the work of Elijah (standing up against idolatry).

Therefore I see no need to look for a second physical temple.
We have a temple in place, the body of Christ.