All Sermons

1 Kings 5-7 Solomon and Temple Part 7 By Graeme Goldsworthy

OK, well the second one that you've got an outline for is 1 Kings 5-7.
It reminds you of the comments I made yesterday about a strategy.
For me, the strategy of sermonizing on Sundays in church may well be different from a strategy you would employ
in teaching the same section of scripture in say a small group or a weekly Bible study
or as a Christian parent around the dinner table to your kids.
Because I firmly believe that a person, and it's not just the person who wanders in off the street,
I don't know about you, but we found, and it seems to me to be fairly universal,
that your congregation will be made up of regulars who come hell or high water will be there
unless there is sickness in the family or they're away on holidays, they'll be there every Sunday.
And you've got those who call themselves regulars and regular equals once a month.
Then you've got those who will come because they haven't had a better offer.
And then you get those who do wander in or who are brought just in a once off sort of thing.
And it seems to me that you've got to try to handle all situations and since, probably for most of us,
the number of people who you can count on being there absolutely every Sunday may well be in the minority
and therefore a series of sermons needs to, I believe, contain, each sermon needs to be in a sense self-contained
while at the same time having the cumulative effect that a series should have.
So that's just my thoughts on the thing.
In moving on then to have a look at 1 Kings 5-7, once again it seems to me that
we could handle a larger body of text by focusing on some of the key points.
So what I've done is, first of all, the first point is,
I won't bother you with any sort of introductory ideas or any heuristics
or telling a funny story when you get up to start with.
This is just, to me, the sermon outline and we can talk about it as we go.
And by the way, feel free to interrupt at any time if you want to, provided it's relevant.
So the first point is Solomon's intention to build the temple and I indicate that from chapter 5 verses 1 to 12.
Solomon approaches Hiram, king of Tyre,
and his father David had been friendly with.
And he says in verse 3,
So that's not something that you actually learn from 2 Samuel 7 where you have David's intention to build the temple.
It comes out even more strongly, I think, in the Chronicles account.
But here we're told that the reason David couldn't build the temple was that things were still a bit unstable.
I suspect that there is a theological reason behind this in the sovereign providence of God here
that the whole notion of the son of David building as well as the Davidic line being involved may come up.
But anyway, he says in verse 4,
So I intend to build a house for the name of the Lord my God, as the Lord said to my father David.
The thing about the 2 Samuel 7 one is the turning the thing around about.
David wants to build God a bayet, a house.
And through Nathan the prophet, the Lord says to him,
No, you won't build me a bayet house, I will build you a bayet house.
And the same 2 meanings of house occur there as we use in English.
One is a structure you live in, and the other is a dynasty, like the house of Habsburg, the house of Windsor.
So David says, I want to build the Lord a house, somewhere to live.
The Lord says, you won't build me somewhere to live, I will make you a dynasty.
And it's a play on the Hebrew words.
And it's the dynasty of David then that is incorporated into the theology there, which you see coming out here.
What's more, we see that in verse 4, that Yahweh has given him rest.
He is neither adversary nor evil.
It's interesting in the Hebrew, it's ein satan, there's no Satan.
I only mention that because where Satan is mentioned in the Old Testament, you have to be careful.
Even in the book of Job, it's not clear that a satan who challenges God with regard to Job,
is in fact Diabolos of the New Testament.
Diabolos of the New Testament is called Satan because Satan is a functional title.
He fulfills that function of adversary.
It's a word, it's like the counsel for the prosecution, and that's how you see him in the book of Job.
I mean, there again, I don't get my shirt in the night if somebody wants to identify the satan of the book of Job as the devil.
But there again, I don't think it's as clear as all that, it may be, if you think on exegetical grounds.
But here, the adversary, the satan, I think is not the devil so much as human agents.
But that doesn't mean there isn't a connection, if you want to draw it.
And in verse 5, his intention is to build a house for the name of the Lord.
Now this is where close exegesis, I think, becomes important.
Because, particularly if you're familiar with the passage, it's very easy to read through it,
and to miss some of the key sort of theological points that are coming up.
And I would say that one of them is this whole question of building a temple for the name of the Lord.
Name is very important going all the way back to Genesis 11,
where the people who built the Tower of Babel did so because they wanted to make a name for themselves, without God.
And God confounds their intentions.
And then in the very next chapter, God calls Abraham out of Ur of the Chaldees,
and one of the things he says to him, he says, I will make your name great.
So people who want to be notable, as the Babelites did, without God, are confused and confounded.
Whereas, one who is saved and called by grace will have his name made great by grace,
simply by virtue of being called by God, and being God's servant.
And then of course, the word name is in Hebrew the word Shem,
and it is the Shemites, the sons of Shem, the son of Noah, who are seen to constitute the godly people,
the godly line of people through whom God is going to work.
So we're even going back to Noah and his sons.
There is this use of the term Shem, or name, which has great significance.
And then the revealing of God's name to Moses, where he says he hadn't revealed by his name El Shaddai,
or mighty God, or exalted God, or something like that, he revealed himself to Abraham.
He said, by my name Yahweh, I had not made my name known.
And so, according to the Exodus account, the significance, even though Yahweh is used in the Genesis account,
it's either a reading back of the name which was later revealed,
or it is that in Exodus the significance of that name is given,
because it is given to Moses in the context of covenant fulfilment,
that God will keep his covenants with the people, as he promised to Abraham.
And then in various places, not least of which is in the book of Deuteronomy,
where a great deal of focus is placed upon the name of God,
which will be made to rest in a certain place, which will be where the people worship.
And so in Deuteronomy 12 verse 5, just to take an example,
he says in the previous verse, you shall not worship Yahweh your God,
and don't forget of course, I think sometimes it is useful to point out to your congregations,
that in most English versions, the tetragrammaton, the personal name of God, YHVH in Hebrew,
is usually spelt as Lord with smaller lower case letters,
and it's not a title, but a personal name.
So you shall not worship, and how you pronounce it, who knows,
but it's become fairly common to refer to him as Yahweh or Yahweh,
you shall not worship Yahweh your God in such ways,
but you shall seek the place that Yahweh your God will choose out of all your tribes,
as his habitation to put his name there.
And the name Yahweh I believe is the name which is linked with the fact that God is the covenant making God,
who promises to save his people and to bind them to himself.
And so when Proverbs says the fear of Yahweh is the beginning of wisdom,
it is a very covenantal statement, and puts the whole book of Proverbs within the framework of the covenant.
I'm absolutely convinced of that.
Also verse 11 of the same chapter of Deuteronomy,
then you shall bring everything that I command you to the place that Yahweh your God will choose as a dwelling for his name.
It becomes very prominent, the idea that the name of God will dwell in a particular place.
Deuteronomy 14 verses 23 and 24,
in the presence of Yahweh your God in the place that he will choose as a dwelling for his name,
you shall eat the tithes of your grain, your wine, your oil, as well as the first things of your herd, etc, etc, etc.
Deuteronomy 16 verse 2,
you shall offer the passover sacrifice for Yahweh your God from the flock, the herd,
at the place that the Lord or Yahweh will choose as a dwelling for his name.
Same in verse 6,
but at the place that the Lord or Yahweh your God will choose as a dwelling for his name,
only there shall you offer the passover sacrifice.
Verse 11,
rejoice before the Lord your God, etc, etc, etc,
at the place that the Lord your God will choose as a dwelling for his name.
OK?
So now you have in the temple building episode,
in 1 Kings 5 verse 5,
Solomon sees his role as constructing a dwelling place for God
as the place where the name of the Lord will be identified.
Would you use all the references to have just given up in this book?
Not necessarily.
It doesn't hurt to read a couple of them out I think.
Again, it depends on your sermon style and how long you've got.
I think if I was going to do it I'd make sure I had them written out in full on my script
so you know, this sort of stuff,
that can get people confused.
And if your congregation is a congregation of people who follow your sermon with their Bibles open on their knee
it might be useful to say,
look don't bother looking up, I'll read to you, you know,
otherwise you get massive confusion if they're engaging in the so-called evangelical paper chase.
Yeah, but I think that's something you sort of work out in your time.
This not only belongs to the so-called Deuteronomic historian and so on,
but you find it also in prophetic passages.
Isaiah 18 is a case in point.
Again, you can either get them to look it up or read it or whatever.
18.7
At that time gifts will be brought to the Lord of hosts from a people tall and smooth,
from a people who fear and fire a nation mighty in conquering his land, the rivers divide,
to Mount Zion, the place of the name of the Lord.
I tend to, you know, go off at tangents and things like this,
but when I've preached on the commandment,
you shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain,
it's important, I think, to exegete it closely.
I was interested to see that Alan Harmon wrote an article in the Reformed Theological Review
in which he took exactly the same view that I had taken in sermon years and years ago.
I think I preached the first in a Presbyterian church in North Carolina,
and to me the exegesis of you shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain,
the Hebrew verb to take is nassa, which means to bear or to carry, not to speak.
And I understand that commandment meaning you shall not bear Yahweh's name vainly.
In other words, your life should be consistent with the name that you are named by.
It will include rash speaking and blaspheming and so on, but that's not the trust of it,
the trust of it is that your life shall be consistent with being called by Yahweh's name.
Because Isaiah has a verse I can't think of where it is at the moment where he says,
you know, we have become like those who were never called by your name.
It was in their sinfulness and their cast offness and their destitution of the exile.
They are the unnamed people, they no longer are as people named by Yahweh's name.
First of all, I learnt that from you years and years ago, as I have mentioned in the Bible.
Oh yes, is that right? Okay.
It's a very interesting history, but the other thing was in the Aaronic blessing,
that so you shall literally put the name of the Lord your God on the people's history.
What do you think that name is?
Well, off the top of my head I would have to say, well, it sounds to me like what he is saying is,
that you will identify them, this is their identity.
You are saying, this is your character, this is your identity.
It's interesting because I have never found an exegete,
and I think I even looked Calvin up on this one, who has not interpreted Nassar to mean speak, to utter.
I can't understand why, I really cannot understand why, it seems to me monumental misplacement.
Particularly in the light of the way the term name is used constantly.
This is a classic case where you want to get your concordance out,
and just follow it up as to how the name of Yahweh is talked about in Old Testament scriptures.
So, there you are. Another passage, just for your own reference, is Jeremiah 7, 11 and 12.
Remember that's the great temple one, where Jeremiah says,
don't say the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord.
After Josiah's great reformation, everybody sort of jumping up and down,
saying we are using the prayer book again, we are all orthodox, etc.
Don't kid yourself with Jeremiah.
Has this house which is called by my name become a den of robbers in your sight?
I've never heard that before.
You know I too am watching, says the Lord, go now to the place that was in Shiloh,
where I made my name dwell at first, and see what I did to it, for the wickedness of my people.
They can find Shiloh.
Yeah, so there you are, there's a lot that hangs on that.
So the temple is the place for the name of Yahweh.
I think that's a point really worth bringing out and sort of expanding on,
and letting them see that this is not just Solomon making a sort of a pious statement.
It really is given in the context of a very important theological theme,
which runs through the Old Testament.
But we also know of Solomon's realism, and it doesn't come out I think quite so clearly in this passage
as it does in the parallel in Chronicles.
So that in 2 Chronicles 2, this is why I think it is important to keep an eye on the parallel passages in Chronicles.
Without saying, you know, I think there is a point about exegeting a text as it is,
but also I do think it is valid to try to understand some of the ramifications
that might be brought out in other texts dealing with the same thing.
So in 2 Chronicles 2 verse 6,
But who is able to build a house since heaven, even the highest heaven, cannot contain him?
Now the reason why I am happy to incorporate that here is that later on in Solomon's prayer,
he constantly makes reference to this reality.
That is, that he says, who am I to build a house for him, except as a place to make offerings before him?
So even back there, it is recognized, and I think this is important,
it is recognized that however much the tabernacle was spoken of in the wilderness,
in the latter part of Exodus, as a place for Yahweh to dwell,
no one ever thought in their right mind that Yahweh literally was living there.
And the whole is that he made his name to dwell there,
that it was a point of identification that symbolized his presence amongst his people.
But even Solomon recognizes that in building this temple,
Yahweh couldn't be seen in the temple as if that was a localized deity or anything like that.
So back to 1 Kings,
in verse 7,
Hyrum recognizes that this temple building is a manifestation of something important.
I wouldn't want to speculate on just how much Hyrum understood or knew about the God of Israel
and the God of his father, of his friend Solomon's father David and so on,
but he says, blessed be Yahweh today who has given to David a wise son to be over his great people.
I think he just recognizes that Solomon is doing some good things.
He is probably a polytheist and acknowledges that just as he has God, so also Israel has God.
I think you see the same in the book of Daniel with Nebuchadnezzar and so on,
when he praises Daniel's God and so on.
It's not as if he suddenly becomes a monotheist and converted to Judea.
It's just that he recognizes that there are more God's touch than they thought to begin with.
Q&A
Yeah, I think so.
I know the Ethiopians have all sorts of interesting traditions about the Queen of Sheba
and what followed from her encounter with Solomon and who knows just what happened.
She wouldn't have been the first.
But I don't think from the text of 1 Kings 10 you can gain a great deal
other than that she was flabbergasted and thought there must be something behind this.
Q&A
Q&A
Q&A
Well, I suppose my answer to that, how do we know, is we just look and see what are the things which are really stressed.
And now having said that, I think that helps us to see what are the main things.
But you've got to be careful when you're doing that, that the text that you're dealing with is the text
and not just a fragment of it.
Because something might be stressed in the whole sweep from 1 Kings 3 through to 10
because I think that in a sense is a literary unit that you mightn't necessarily find stressed in 1 Kings 5
but is present in 1 Kings 5.
So I think it's part of what would make me say that exegesis is part science and part art.
Now we needn't wonder at that, I remember my chaplain supervisor in Bellevue Hospital
where I was doing three months of hospital chaplaincy training
saying that even the head surgeon at Bellevue Hospital maintained that surgery was both a science and an art.
I thought well if that's true for hard-headed medicos, you know.
And there have been some books written, you know, the well-known ones,
Hans Frei and the Art of Biblical Narrative, the Eclipse of Biblical Narrative, the Art of Biblical History,
there's more recent one that's come out.
I think there is an art in exegesis and part of the art is to be imaginative and receptive
and try and feel your way into the way the narrative is woven and see what things are emerging as important.
Yeah, but the question of how wide is your context because you can have, you might say,
a reasonably self-contained narrative as we've got here from chapter 3 to chapter 10.
But I don't think there's any doubt about it that the whole two books of Kings have been put together.
And indeed as we know, those people who hold the Deuteronomic theory of the Deuteronomic history
would say somebody has finally put the whole box and dice from the book of Deuteronomy
right through the former prophets together with a sort of basic and identifiable theological trust.
So I don't know how to answer your question other than that.
I think, you know, you sort of get a feeling for it and what questions to ask.
I suppose I ask myself, what does this guy think is important?
What's he trying to get over to me?
At the same time I have to say, he thinks as, say, an Israelite covenant theologian, if I can put it that way.
Therefore he might say something which appears almost as a throwaway line,
which to him is, you know, really important, because he's, as we do.
I mean, we say covenant theology and those who are in the know know exactly what you're talking about
or roughly what you're talking about.
Somebody who's outside has no clue what you're talking about.
Well, it's interesting.
I mean, we couldn't speak of covenantal problems there.
I knew what they were saying.
The way they're on when they've got Solomon continuing to get him,
starts to get off the feet.
That doesn't sound that good.
Maybe he's building a life which he probably is getting into, working out his life.
The way his relationship with Chira.
He's sending back to Israel.
Yeah, I would be careful about, you know, unless there was really clear evidence that this is what is happening.
I think there's more evidence in the Queen of Sheba one.
I mean, that's really stressed, is how the Queen comes and is...
Well, it spells out in a way that you don't find in the other ones.
Oh well, anyway, we'll press on and see how we go.
I think at this stage we see in verse 7 that Hyrum recognizes this temple
as some sort of manifestation of God-given wisdom.
He's given David a wise son.
My feeling is that here, and I'm sorry to have to keep saying my own feeling,
but I think it is partly sort of getting a feeling
and then testing whether your feeling stands up in the light of, you know, as you go on in the passage.
My feeling here is that the writer wants us to recognize
that the whole notion of building the temple is part of the wisdom of Solomon.
And even Hyrum can see it.
Now, why should that bother us if we recognize that
wisdom is something shared by all the nations of the world?
Every culture has its wisdom, and there is, in a sense, an overlap.
Now, I think a lot of the evangelicals have problems getting to grips with this one,
particularly when, for instance, the Old Testament scholars tell us
that there's a section of the Book of Proverbs which was hijacked from Egyptian wisdom.
Now, it was, in a sense, baptized, if I can use that term, into Israel's wisdom
and put in the framework of the fear of the Lord.
But there are lots of wise things that are said by people
who do not have the ultimate framework that we have
that we can simply take over and put into our ultimate framework.
You can learn wisdom from the man who comes to fix your lawnmower
so that when you watch him doing it, you'll have the wisdom to fix it
next time it does the same sort of, you know, funny things.
So that there are lots of things in the Book of Proverbs
which are not distinctively Israelite in any sort of obviously theological way.
But when you put it all together,
you're saying that here is somebody who is understanding life
and understanding the way relationships work, understanding the world,
getting a handle upon human experience,
but in doing so within this framework which will put this ultimate coloring on things.
So as I often put it, you know, if my lawnmower does go fat,
I'm not particularly interested in whether the person who fixes it is a Christian or not.
I want to know if he can fix lawnmowers.
But if, in the course of conversation with him,
we got into a discussion on the ultimate significance of human technology,
then we would differ miles if he were not a Christian.
See what I'm getting at?
So it seems to me entirely possible that here is a pagan king
who is unable to recognize, even though he doesn't know the ultimate significance of it,
that Solomon is being wise in building this temple.
Second point, the building of the temple.
You have to jump around a bit here.
We're told about it in the last part of chapter 5, verse 13.
And then that's where he's gathering the labor and so on.
And then chapter 6, verses, well right through, really, through to 38.
Describes the building of the temple.
Chapter 7, you also have verses 13 through 51.
Alright, well that's a lot of stuff.
So it seems to me that you have to sort of try to pick the eyes out of it.
You'll have to, if you're going to do this the way I did,
you'll have to lead your congregation through and just say,
look, here are some of the salient points about Solomon building the temple.
The things that I've mentioned, for instance, at this point,
that in 6, verse 1, we're told it took place in the 480th year
after the Israelites came out of the land of Egypt.
Now, I don't think that the writer is interested in so much in how many years,
but what he is interested in is linking this event
with the coming out of Egypt.
In other words, something has happened, or something is happening now,
which in a sense brings to a climax all the events which began with the coming out of Egypt.
It doesn't really matter whether it's 480 years or 481 or whatever.
I don't think that's what he's interested in telling us.
If he were interested in that sort of thing, I think we'd have a lot more sort of chronology built into it.
But he's saying, look, there was a significant event in the past,
and that was the coming out of the land of Egypt,
but now Solomon is building the temple.
And I think he's leaving it to us to make the link.
And I think the links are there all the way through.
If you go back to the coming out of Egypt,
one of the most important things that happens soon after they come out
is A, the covenant in Sinai,
and in broader terms that includes the prescription given for the building of the tabernacle,
which is the forerunner to the temple.
So that's one point of note.
So it links the temple with the redemptive event.
That's the key.
It also marks approximately the midpoint between the first and the second Exodus.
That isn't explicit in here, but that's just simply a fact,
that there is a high point here which climaxes something which began with the Exodus,
and this is going to pass into oblivion and there's going to be a new Exodus.
I wouldn't make a big point of that.
When the tabernacle was being constructed,
the striking group of qualities which describe the builders, the craftsmen,
who had all sorts of skills in Exodus 31, 3, is that they had wisdom.
That's one of the interesting things about the use of the Hebrew word chokmah,
is that it is used not only to describe discretion, discernment,
all those sort of things that we tend to think is going on in your brain,
but also when a group of people can get together and with great skill use their hands, that is wisdom.
So it puts a new dimension into the whole notion of wisdom.
So back in Exodus 31, we're told that these people, the spirit of God in wisdom was upon them.
In fact, indeed if you look at, and I'll do it for you, just read it to you.
Exodus 31, verse 3,
the Lord speaks to Moses and says,
I have filled him with divine spirit, with ability, intelligence and knowledge in every kind of craft,
to devise artistic designs to work in gold, silver and bronze and so on.
Later down in verse 6, I have given skill to all the skillful,
so that they may make all that I have commanded you.
So once again, you have this notion of wisdom which is extended to it.
And in 1 Kings 7, verse 14,
Solomon invited and received Hiram from Tyre.
He was the son of a widow of the tribe of Naphtali.
There are two Hirams, so don't get them mixed up.
There's Hiram the king and Hiram the half Naphtaliite.
Please don't call them Naphtaliite.
Just look and see how it's spelt.
It's Naphtali.
His father is a man of Tyre, had been an artisan in bronze,
and he was full of Hochma skill, intelligence, Tezunah,
these are all words you'll find in the beginning of the book of Proverbs,
and Da'at, knowledge.
And he casts pillars of bronze and so on.
So both in the building of the tabernacle and the temple,
it is stressed that the way it was done was through wisdom,
even though that wisdom was primarily seen in terms of skill, artisan skill.
The skill is demonstrated in, say, 6 verse 7.
The house was built with stone finished at the quarry
so that neither hammer nor axe nor any tool or iron was heard in the temple
while it was being built.
They were able to shake the stones perfectly
before they brought them to the building site.
No trial and error was there.
Okay, so that really is the key point of this one.
As I say, it's a long passage,
and I would just sort of lead your congregation through the fact
that a lot went into the building of the temple,
and it's very interesting here that the writer wants to stress the fact
just as with the building of the temple that this is a manifestation of wisdom.
There's no doubt in my mind that the building of the temple
is a further expression of the wisdom that God gives to Solomon back in chapter 3.
So that's point 2.
Point 3, what is the Lord's word about the project?
In 611 to 13,
the word of the Lord came to Solomon,
Concerning this house that you are building,
if you will walk in My statutes, obey My ordinances, and keep all My commands by walking in them,
then I will establish My promise with you and I will make,
which I made to your father David,
I will dwell among the children of Israel and will not forsake the people of Israel.
So, the wisdom of building the temple and the significance of the temple,
see the significance of the temple could be generated into just being a heap of stones and mortar,
and that of course is what happens eventually,
even in the time of Jesus,
the fact that the temple is going to be destroyed,
and was destroyed in 70 A.D.
So I would suggest here that it's saying that the project is linked with the obedience to God's covenant.
The most important side of wisdom is to live by the word of the Lord.
Now, just sort of an addition to that,
I'm not saying that wisdom is simply the small print of the covenant code,
I don't think the book of Proverbs is a bunch of footnotes to the Sinai covenant,
it functions in a different way, there is always overlap,
and we can see that overlap,
it comes out particularly in some of the intertestamental writings which haven't made it into the canon of scripture,
that in Jewish thinking, particularly in Hellenistic times,
the law and wisdom came to be almost seen as the same thing.
But there's no doubt about it that the correct attitude to the law of God is an aspect of wisdom,
and the fear of the Lord would embrace that.
Again, there was an important monograph written by a Roman Catholic theologian,
published by the Papal Biblical Institute in Rome,
which, again, was just a word study on Gotteschuster, the fear of the Lord.
Unfortunately that one's not been translated either,
but he just looks at the way the fear of the Lord is used through so many texts,
and comes up with the sort of essential conclusion that the fear of the Lord has different kinds of slants to it,
it's sometimes basically covenant obedience,
because it always comes down to a faithful response to the self-revelation of God through his word.
That's probably the simplest way of putting it.
Okay, so there's obedience to the covenant,
and also the second aspect of it is that the promise to dwell with the people is there.
So the temple will symbolize the fact that Yahweh is with his people,
He is with them, however they conceive of that.
It is the demonstration that God is there.
Now of course, both the temple and the tabernacle, by the very way that they're laid out,
and the requirements of a mediating priesthood,
and sacrifices for the priests to go into the Holy of Holies, and so on,
both tell the same story that God dwells amongst his people, but he doesn't keep open house.
And the only way to come into the presence of the Lord is through the mediating sacrifices, priestly ministry.
So, this wisdom then is the condition of the covenant relationship being maintained.
The dwelling of God amongst his people is the presence of God in the relationship of Savior, ruler, covenant partner,
and the source of all blessing.
And here I would say this must be understood in the light of 2 Samuel 7.14,
because this is what it is fulfilling.
To which, you know, I'd add these comments that the dimension there is that the Son of David is the Son of God.
Remember that when the promise was made to David concerning his son,
that God also said that when he steps out of line he will be chastised, so sin will be punished.
But on the other hand, it is clear from 2 Samuel 7 that God has said his covenant love, his steadfast love,
however you translate it, or whatever your version says, is sure,
and that the kingdom and David's throne are made sure forever.
And that of course is the point that leads you, because of the way the New Testament picks up,
and particularly Peter in his Pentecost Day sermon,
that the resurrection of Jesus is the enthronement of the Son of David.
And the third aspect of this is the destruction and restoration of the temple is there, is implied I'd say.
In other words, by this call to covenant obedience in relation,
there is the warning not to simply depend upon or to presume upon the presence of the temple,
and that comes out clearly in the Jeremiah 7 passage.
You know, you rush around saying the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord, well don't be blind.
It's all going to disappear, and so are you if you don't watch it.
So, we know that the axe does fall on a rebellious house of David,
and that we know that the temple was destroyed.
And the covenant faithfulness of God, however, goes on,
and it's expressed in the prophecies of restoration,
and even the second temple and its development as the temple of Herod was not accompanied by obedience
and the establishment of the Davidic throne.
So, at this point, what I did, and you have to consider whether you would do it,
I linked it with John 2.
When Jesus replies to the challenge to his authority to cleanse the temple in John chapter 2,
he says something which is utterly and radically provocative.
Destroy this temple.
It's in the imperative, in the Greek.
Destroy this temple.
It's not even put, you know, as a subjunctive, if this temple were to be destroyed type of thing.
He just says destroy this temple.
It's almost a command.
If you want to know the authority, I'm telling you get rid of this temple.
It's not if this temple were to fall down, I could build it up again.
He's saying get rid of it, and I will restore the true temple.
Who would destroy the temple?
Well, the covenant and the history of the temple indicate that it is the covenant breaking of a faithless people
that brings the destruction.
They have destroyed the temple at Shiloh, they have brought about the destruction of Jerusalem,
and they will, without knowing it, destroy the temple when they put him to death on the cross.
They will fulfill his command and his prediction without knowing it.
Well, those are the points that I have made.
That is as far as I took that passage.
So what did I want to bring out?
I wanted to bring out that the intention to build the temple was the framework for a re-introduction
of the theology of the name of Yahweh dwelling amongst his people.
Secondly, I wanted to bring out that the building of the temple was an expression of the wisdom
which God gave to Solomon.
And the temple building will always be an expression of wisdom.
So that when you come to the New Testament, again to the most definitive passages in 1 Corinthians 1 and 2,
it is the Gospel.
Christ and him crucified and the resurrection and so on, which is the ultimate expression of wisdom.
And thirdly, that the Lord's word about it is to link it with the covenant,
his promise to dwell amongst his people,
and the implied threat that this cannot stand on its own if they are not obedient.
So my conclusions.
Wisdom involves obedience to the revealed wisdom of God.
Where Solomon and all the kings failed, Jesus has been the perfectly obedient one.
So what does the narrative about Solomon tell us about the Christ who is greater than he is?
So I've suggested three things.
Firstly, Christ is the faithful son of David who perfectly keeps the covenant with the Father
and restores the temple through the destruction of the old and his bodily resurrection.
Secondly, the theme of Immanuel or God with us is inextricably bound up with the new temple.
If Jesus is the Immanuel, if Jesus is God with us, then he is the temple.
God dwells amongst his people as promised to Solomon and his people before him as the God-man, Jesus Christ.
And thirdly, the obedience required of the son of David as the condition for these blessings being enjoyed
is the obedience that only Jesus has given amongst all mankind.
Only he has been the faithful son of David, the faithful Israelite who keeps covenant.
So as Hebrews puts it, Christ was faithful over God's house as a son.
What does that mean?
Well I've suggested at least some of the overtones of that statement in Hebrews 3.6.
Or Romans 10.4, Christ is the telos, the end of the law.
Not the cup-foot of the law, but the goal of the law.
So that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.
So, I felt constrained at this point to add in sort of summing it up that
a little bit about what it means for Christ to be the telos, the goal and the righteousness of God.
So Christ did not simply wipe the slate clean so that God could say, go you are forgiven.
But as I heard one person put it once, the righteousness of Christ in his perfect life as the Jewish life and so on
means that by faith in him, God can say to us, not just go you are forgiven, but come you are accepted.
And finally for Romans 5, 10, 3, 4.
While we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of his son.
Much surely who has been reconciled will be saved by his life.
Well that's sort of basically it.
That's the way I took it.
There are probably other ways that you could do it.
If you're going to choose three chapters out of the book of Kings,
essentially you've got to try and see where it's going in the main sort of theological points.
That's how my mind works and I'm quite sure there must be lots of other theological points that I've missed.
And if I were to go through and do another close exegesis on this,
I could probably come up with another set of sermons which would be quite different.
Questions?
I'm just reading a book about preaching.
We'll talk about that in a minute.
But preaching is important.
One of the things that is important in preaching is by assessing the needs of your congregation.
So is what you're saying that maybe by assessing the needs of your congregation
you might focus on point A to point B?
If I knew what the needs of the congregation were.
I've often heard that said and I've asked myself,
how do you assess the needs of your congregation?
Now in broad terms you might be able to,
but a congregation is a very fluid thing and a very diverse thing.
I just try to think of our little congregations.
Not a huge congregation, probably much easier.
I probably know them all fairly well.
But if you were to ask me what needs they have,
apart from they need to grow,
it would all be fairly general.
They need to understand the Gospel better.
They probably need to understand biblical theology more.
They probably need to have a few cranky ideas ironed out of them.
I mean the Baptist was.
I don't know how you do that, Daryl.
There may be some situations where something has come up which has got everybody above.
I don't know, somebody like to comment on that?
Inaudible
Well I can number a few situations where something like,
I remember for instance when we were living in Virginia
and we attended a Presbyterian church which had been,
it was an all white church but had been in an all white neighborhood
but the neighborhood had become virtually black
and they still attended church there.
And I remember he was a professor of Christian education
at the Presbyterian school of Christian education.
He was taking services and he was in tears in the pulpit
as he pled with these people to regard black people as their neighbors
and to accept them and so on
because there was this terrible, particularly in the south,
there was this terrible sort of, they were still reliving the civil war.
And there was a case in point where it was a very moving experience
just to listen to this man pleading with people to treat them as their neighbors and so on.
I can't think of, I can think beyond the sort of situations that have come up
like the homosexuality debate sort of looms large
so you may want to sort of help people think through that one.
Marriage and divorce, I don't know, yeah.
But beyond that I don't know, I think we sort of say in more general terms
we all need to know more about God's word
so let's try and do it in some sort of systematic fashion.