Published by This could as well as be “Buffeting Beliefs” or “Burying Beliefs”. II Samuel 15 – 18 says that Absalom thought and concluded that once he had spent four full years to endear himself to the hearts of the Israelites, he would have enough support to oust his father David who is the greatest king that ever ruled on earth. Another belief he seemed to have had was that as long as he had someone like Ahithophel on his side his victory over his father and his fewer supporters was assured. As things turned out, he, Ahithophel and many of the soldiers that supported him against David died and David was restored to the throne of Israel in Jerusalem. In David’s effort to scuffle Absalom’s rebellion, he displayed what I call “Commendable/Curious Smarter Souls”. He contacted God through prayers and contracted his trusted friend Hushai to counter the “Annihilating Absalom/Ahithophel Alliance”. Their daring David destroyed them.
Ahithophel depended on his unfailing wisdom and it did not fail him in their plot while David’s dependable friend contracted helped to confuse Absalom over Ahithophel’s sure counsel. II Samuel 17:14 and 23 says that Absalom rejected Ahithophel’s potent advice because God had determined to destroy him, while Ahithophel belief that it was too insulting for his counsel to be rejected by Absalom. So while Absalom died in war against David against Ahithophel’s counsel, Ahithophel died by suicide because his counsel was rejected. So the counsel of Ahithophel and the support of the Israelites that Absalom depended on failed him at the end just as strengthof wisdom and counsel that Ahithophel had depended on all his lifetime destroyed him. I call it “Delusive Dependence” on God given gift and grace to achieve feat to become great and glamorous which free thinkers term innate gift.
There is what I call “Self-Strangulating Strength” when a man’s God-given strength becomes the source of his undoing. Such persons believe so much in their strength that they think that it would serve their interest all the time. God empowered David to live through life as a warrior and he used that God given grace to arrange Uriah’s death thinking that it would solve his problem of adultery and protect his reputation. God was angry that he did not refer to Him in his search for a solution to the mess of adultery that he found himself. His case teaches that much as God has given you a particular gift/grace to live great He abhors you using it to do evil against our fellow human. Ahithophel had wisdom with which to gain recognition and respect in his lifetime but God did not expect him to use it to support a son against his own father because if anyone were to support his own son against him he is most likely not to like it. In some ways, Ahithophel killed Absalom when II Samuel says that he counselled Absalom to dishonour his father by having intercourse with his concubines. Exodus 20:12, Leviticus 20:19, Deuteronomy 5:16, 21:17 and 30:2, Proverbs 19:26 and 20:20, Matthew 15:4 and Mark 7:10 say that any son that commit such an abomination would surely not live long. Therefore, every person who knew about this fact of life and still encouraged Absalom to commit it was his real enemy except that Absalom was personally determined to do anything to prove that he wanted the throne of his father at the expense of his father. Absalom got what I call “Sinking, Sickening, Senseless and Seared Souls Support” and surely he never lived to tell his sour story.
Way back in high school there was a school mate who was a year ahead of my set. He was an aggressive personality and commonly say that “When all peaceful means of negotiation fail, you apply force”. It became a dictum we knew him with and he readily resorted to making trouble as soon as his first attempt to negotiate peacefully failed. In like manner, II Samuel 11 and 12 say that once David failed to get Uriah to cover up his mistake peacefully, he resorted to using sword to get rid of Uriah and married his wife under the guise that she had become a widow. When God given strength is used for the wrong reason or implement the wrong idea it becomes injurious to the individual and others. If a wealthy man uses his riches to fund ideas that mar the lives of others it become injurious to his victims and himself and household. There are rich or powerful persons who get to the point of thinking that they should not be denied anything that their heart desire. And it is that very thing that turns around to hurt them. It was Solomon’s God given wisdom, wealth and fame that lured the one thousand women (including wives and concubines) in his life to him. Yet, they became his greatest undoing. Someone could be handsome or beautiful and if he or she depend so much on it to disregard laudable cautious lifestyle regret is inevitable.
Joshua 6:26 and I Kings 16:29 and 34 say that Joshua made sacred statement that amounted to a curse on any attempt to rebuild the walls of Jericho and fix the gates. More than two hundred years later a wealthy man named Hiel did and paid the price with his eldest and youngest sons as Joshua has proclaimed. It is more likely that Hiel did not know about this pronouncement that had God’s backing to implement it. Because he had the means to fund this project and it would improve the prestige of the inhabitants of Jericho like Nehemiah believed it would for the inhabitants of Jerusalem, he just went ahead without confirming from God if it was part of the projects God would have him do in his lifetime. Not everything that is good or seem good that is expedient. Sometimes I wonder why Joseph knew that the Israelites would leave Egypt some day and did not use his privilege position of Prime Minister to effect it with ease before he died rather than just talk about it and left the Israelites to suffer oppression before God used Moses to effect their freedom. As Ecclesiastes 3 says, God has timetable for everything and it was not expedient for the Israelites to leave Egypt at the time of Joseph hence God never prompted him to do it. These and many other cases tells us that it is useful and helpful for a man to confirm appropriate timing from God before setting out to actualize his heart desire. When David did not kill Saul so that he could become king of Israel, he meant that God should take Saul out his pathway to the throne clinically, at the time that God deemed fit. And David was thirty years old when Saul died. Having the means is not enough reason to dabble into just anything that look acceptable in human judgement.
Faith in personal abilities triggers pride and arrogance and it is the beginning of any marvellous man’s downfall inevitably. It makes even a man’s supporters to give up on and desert him or her. King Saul thought that with what is referred to as state apparatus at his disposal he could stop David from emerging as his successor, he forgot that he did not become king by using any state apparatus. Abner thought that he had enough reasons and basis to stop David from ruling the rest tribes of Israel apart from David’s tribe of Judah. Seven and half years after he realised that he had made the greatest mistake of his life and did not live to tell his sorry story by the time he was ready to give in to David’s reign. History is replete with many rulers and persons who it was belief that battered their greatness and glamour and never recovered from it. Apostle Paul believed so much in the Mosaic Laws that he grew up with that he would have missed God’s planned purpose for him if he did not yield when it mattered most. I call it “Making Delightful Detour” and “Making Delightful Destiny Detour”. Luke 5:1-11 says that Peter and some of his friends made such detour when they left their fishing career to follow Jesus on one faithful morning in response to Jesus call to become His disciples. I read the story of a man who died as one of the most successful lawyers that ever lived in his African country. All through his O and A levels he was a pure science student and somewhere he changed his mind to study law in the university and became one of the greatest lawyers in his lifetime.
I Samuel 23:14-18 and 31 make my heart to bleed whenever I think about the end of Jonathan King Saul’s eldest son and heir. He knew that God ordained him to serve as Prime Minister alongside David as king of Israel yet, he did not live to realize that revelation. He could not stand the impression it would create in the heart of people in his generation to think that he deserted his father to join to a friend just because he realised that God meant him to share delightful destiny with David.
The story of Joab killing Abner in time of peace for crimes committed during time of peace reminds me of what I call “This is (not) your chance” or “This is (not) my chance”. It is nearly natural for man to seek what he or she considers his or her chance to do what he believes to be best for him or her at any time. II Samuel 11:1-3, 15:9-12 and 23:34 and I Chronicles 3:5 confirm that Uriah was Ahithophel’s grandson-in-law, it could be inferred that Ahithophel hated David for masterminding Uriah’s death. And saw Absalom’s rebellion as his chance to punish David accordingly. I Kings 2:1-6 says, among other things, that David said that someone like Joab did not deserve to die a natural death because he chose the wrong time to avenge the death of his younger brother Asahel, and punish Amasa for the role he played during Absalom’s rebellion. As far as Joab was concerned he thought that he had his chance to punish Abner and Amasa at the time that II Samuel 3:22-30 and 20:1-22 say that he did. We get a better understanding of this subject matter more when we consider the lessons that David taught mankind in I Samuel 24:1-7 and 26:1-17. Each time David’s followers believed and tried to convince him that God had put his enemy King Saul in his hand to avenge personally, he thought otherwise and refused them his permission that they requested to kill Saul. He considered God factor in Saul’s life and would not punish Saul personally, rather, he let God do it when and how He preferred. Despite that Saul’s continued existence posed security risk to him, David still believed that God was testing his reverence for and faith in His ability to protect him from Saul’s threats. And he did not fail this test.
This is one reason that God let David become an exception to His word in Genesis 9:5-6, Exodus 20:13, Matthew 26:52 and Revelations 13:10 that say that whoever lived by the sword should die by the sword. The reason God forbade David from taking credit for building the Temple that he conceived its idea was because he had shed too much blood during his lifetime. It suggests that David deserved to have died by the sword rather than peacefully at home like he did. There is what I call “IT IS POSSIBLE” and in this respect, it is possible for a man to please God to a point that He would grant him or her an exception to what we classify as His general rule(s) as the case may be. In another respect, it is possible to surprise God, much as He knows all things. II Samuel 7, I Kings 3:3-14 and I Chronicles 17 confirm that at some point of their lives, David and Solomon gave God pleasant surprises in different ways. On the other hand, Jeremiah 7:31 and 32:35 say that the Israelites committed abominations that surprised God. It is ungodly and inhuman to believe that surely you have a chance to afflict your fellow man for any reason at any point in time.
Also, David proved that there is choice in every chance that presents itself to an individual in life. There is what I call “Chance, Choice and Change”. David used his chance in I Samuel 24 and 26 to change the belief of his soldiers that it is not every time that God put your enemies in your hand that you should slaughter them mercilessly. This simply means that your chance is your choice to make commendable change leave laudable legacies for humanity to benefit from. It is like saying that a ruler’s time in position of authority is his or her God given chance to add value to the live of his or her subjects.
I Chronicles 14:1-2 and 18:14, Psalms 78:70-72 and Acts 13:36 say that when David realised that God had made him king according to the implied purpose of Samuel’s anointing in his father’s house in Bethlehem, he determined and worked for the good of the Israelites for the rest of his life. II Corinthians 10:8 and 13:10 say that God ordained and given authority is meant for the individual to help fellow humans than to do otherwise. Genesis 29 connotes that Rachel and Jacob never forgave Leah over the fact that Laban forced her on Jacob as his first wife. Genesis 37 says that Joseph’s older siblings did not forgive him for the fact that their father loved him more than them as if he induced their father at their expense. Yet, Genesis 45 and 50:15-21 say that Joseph freely forgave his siblings who had made life miserable for him earlier by the time he was in privilege position to punish them.
David spent his reign to set the tone/theme and thrust for his successor’s reign for the benefit of the next generations. This is an enviable example to follow. David used his reign to lay a formidable foundation for the realisation of the primary purpose for which God delivered the Israelites from Egyptian bondage. Exodus 5 says that God meant the Israelites to leave Egypt so that they would be free to worship Him. This explains why I Kings 6:1 connected the laying of the foundation of the Temple in Jerusalem by Solomon to the time that the Israelites left Egypt under Moses leadership. The Temple represented the one place of worship that Moses had referred to in Deuteronomy 12:1-14. For reasons of focus we shall not consider “Chance for Choice Change” or “Choice Chance for Change”, and “Chance and Choice Configuration” here.
Solomon’s failure to please God towards the end of his life could not be blamed on his father David just like Aaron was not blamed for the misdeeds of his sons Nadab and Abihu. Also, God did not blame Samuel for the misdeeds of his sons Joel and Abijah which the Israelites resented them for. On the other hand, God adjudged that Eli was partly to blame for the misdeeds of his sons. In fact, I Kings 11:8-13 says that David was part of the reasons that God delayed Solomon’s due punishment until after Solomon’s death. Parents, leaders and elders have a responsibility to set good example for the younger generation to follow.
David was the only leader of Israel that God expressly approved his son to succeed him. Again, apart from King Uzziah of Judah whose son governed on his behalf when he was relieved of his royal duties because of the leprosy he suffered, David was the only king of Israel and Judah who had the privilege of installing his son as his successor before he died. II Chronicles 10:18-23 and 21:1-3 suggest that Kings Rehoboam and Jehoshaphat merely positioned their preferred sons Abijah and Jehoram to succeed them. Whereas I Kings 2 and I Chronicles 22, 28 and 29:1-25 confirm that David made Solomon king and encouraged the leaders of Israel to lend their support to his success. Judges 9 recounts that because of the wearisome way that Abimelech succeeded his father Gideon as leader of Israel, God punished him and his monstrous maternal relatives who had lent their sickening support to the massacre of his saner siblings.
I Kings 11:38, 14:1-8 and 15:1-4, II Kings 14:1-3, 16:1-2, 18:1-3 and 22:1-2 and II Chronicles 28:1, 29:1-2 and 34:1-2 confirm that David set a standard by which God assessed other kings of Israel. The exclusive quarters he carved out within Jerusalem and named after himself as David’s City became part of the indices of a good and bad king in Judah. II Chronicles 21:14-16, 24:23-25, 26:1-5,16-21 and 23 and 28:1-4 and 9-27 say that the good leaders were buried there while the bad ones were dishonoured by been buried outside it.
David taught that God recognizes and reward all those that use every chance they get in life to change what I call “Notorious Norms”. And too many bizzare things are becoming norms on account of civilization daily. Morals is at its lowest ebb just as social vices are been multiplied. Many have accepted negativity as a means of getting attention and popularity without regard for the faulty nature of the fame. In military circles which was David’s lifelong constituency it is a norm to deal fatal blow on your known enemy without any constraining consideration. Military instincts dictate that force and possible fatality is the first option to resolving any disagreement whereas those who are political minded would emphasize dialogue. This was what differentiated David from his nephews the sons of his elder sister Zeruiah as he referred to them. Notorious norms are nullifying nuggets.
II Samuel 16:5-14 says that David clashed with his nephews Joab and his younger brother Abishai once again while they escaped from Jerusalem during Absalom’s rebellion. Saul’s relative named Shimei saw Absalom’s rebellion and David’s immediate predicament as a chance to vent his resentment for David. While David believed that it was not expedient to punish Shimei his nephews did not stop to think before seeking David’s approval to kill him. David abhorred them for lack of ability to control their feelings and anger. Anyone who cannot control his or her feelings appropriately have what I call “Faulty Feelings factoring and fostering further frustrations”.
II Samuel 2 and 3:2 and 6-21 tell the story of events that took place after the death of King Saul and the final emergence of David as king of Israel in addition to his tribe of Judah seven and half years after Saul’s demise. Abner had sponsored Saul’s son Ishbosheth to rule Israel while David ruled over the tribe of Judah. Then, Ishbosheth made what turned out to be the greatest mistake of his reign when he dared to challenge Abner’s right to have affair with his father’s concubine Rizpah. Abner saw this as his chance to prove that he was the power behind Ishbosheth’s throne of Israel by shifting his support for David’s rule and reign over the other tribes, of course, at the expense of Ishbosheth. Considering that II Samuel 3:17-18 says -
17 Abner went to the leaders of Israel and said to them, “For a long time you have wanted David to be your king. 18 Now here is your chance. Remember that the Lord has said, ‘I will use my servant David to rescue my people Israel from the Philistines and from all their other enemies.’” (TEV-GNB)
It means that Abner had forced Ishbosheth’s reign on majority of the Israelites who had desired David’s reign knowing that it was God’s will and that David enjoyed God’s support over Ishbosheth. Until Abner had his personal disagreement with his surrogate ruler he did not give the Israelites the chance to have their heart desire that agreed with God’s will and purpose for them. The reason that Abner believed that his personal beliefs about succession to his late cousin Saul must be enforced at the expense of God will and people’s wishes is seemingly unfathomable. The only reasons we can glean is from the fact that II Samuel 3:6 says that during those seven and half years that he held-sway as the seemingly one-man kingmaker he enjoyed the special respect of the most powerful individual among the eleven northern tribes of Israel.
And perhaps secondly, Saul was his cousin and might have thought that he was too powerful to see the throne of Israel go outside his extended family and tribe of Benjamin in his lifetime. Unfortunately, it was while he clinged to this belief that he killed Asahel which formed the basis for Joab cut short his life during the time of peace despite David’s assurances of his safety. The belief that made him prevent David’s reign as long as he deemed fit laid the foundation for the way he died. If he had respected God’s will and the wishes of the majority, he would not have died that way and time.
In fact, David might have conceded the position of army commander of Israel to him because it was only after his death that David opened the position of his army commander of Israel to any other person and Joab emerged. It was as if David was waiting for the twelve tribes to come under his complete control and let Abner take charge. Also, it is possible that Abner was not sure what role of relevance he would be allowed to occupy if David became king of the other tribes alongside Judah. And that is a problem, personal concern of uncertainty is not enough reason to determine to prevent God’s will and people’s collective wishes. Alternatively, express your concerns at negotiation rather than take a personal solution stand. Either of them should have opened discussion line with the other and spell out their concerns and desires.
I Kings 11 – 14 says that at some point after God orchestrated Jeroboam’s emergence as king of Israel while Rehoboam ruled only the tribe of Judah, Jeroboam decided to adopt his personal solution to his concern over the continued loyalty of the people of Israel to him. If God spoke and ensured that he became king after Solomon’s death then, he should have sought God’s help to keep the loyalty of the people over whom God made him king. It is unfortunate that I Kings 11:26-39 and 14:1-20 say that it was the selfsame Prophet Ahijah whom God used to indicate to Jeroboam that he would be king that He used to indicate his ensnared end. It is like saying that the same mouth that once blessed was turned around to curse him. It was a big blunder on the part of Jeroboam. A belief that buried him – possible thinking that he had the capacity to keep what God gave him by his personal ability. The selfsame Samuel that God used to make Saul king was used to reject his reign and pronounce his death.
At any time that David had to make effort to keep the throne that he believed that God gave him, he sought God’s help. After the death of Saul, he consulted God to guide him to where he should go to be made king. I Samuel 31 and II Samuel 1 and 2:1-7 confirm that it was the Lord that told him to leave Ziklag to Hebron where the elders of Judah converged to make him their king. II Samnuel 5:17-25 and I Chronicles 14:8-17 jointly confirm that upon becoming king of Israel and Jerusalem and relocating to Jerusalem, the Philistines determine to capture him. He sought and got God’s help to defeat them and keep the throne. Then, II Samuel 15 – 18 confirms in Chapter 15:31 that prayer to God was the starting point of his efforts that quelled Absalom’s rebellion eventually.
I Samuel 30 says that David used the chance of God helping him and his fighting men to recover their families and loot from the Amalekites to teach mankind including military men that whatever God helps you to get in life, it is expected that you share with those too weak to get any by themselves. Winner takes is all is not the best belief concerning blessing with riches. There is what I understand to be “Better Beliefs Bless” both the believer just as others benefit from it. Considering that Genesis 41 – 47 strongly suggests that the profile of Egypt rose considerably during the seven years of famine because everyone came there to buy food to survive and it was made possible because Pharaoh gave Joseph the chance to manage the economy, it means that Pharaoh believing Joseph’s interpretation and abilities blessed all Egyptians and the world at the time. An individual’s failure to believe and behave appropriately could cause great pain to many who should have benefited from him or her. A man’s failure could be fatal to several. When few executives mismanage an establish, thousands of employees would laid off and their dependants would suffer along with them. I Samuel 2:12-17 and 22-36, 3:1-18 and 4 say that while punishing Eli and his sons his daughter in-law and by implication his grandson Ichabod and thousands of Israel’s fighting men died along with them. II Samuel 17:14 and 18:1-17(6-8) says that several thousands of Israelites fighting men died alongside Absalom that God meant to punish. If the man that recommended Joseph to Pharaoh in Genesis 41 had not perhaps Pharaoh would never had found solution to the strange dream he had and would have wasted the excesses of the seven years of bumper harvest and his nation and the rest of the world would have suffered more than they did.
Joshua 9 and II Samuel 21:1-14 says that Saul broke a sacred agreement that Israel had with the people of Gibeon during his reign because he was zealous for the Israelites. In actual fact, two fundamental things caused this mistake that provoked God to defend the Gibeonites against the Israelites because this agreement had been made in His name or with Him as the chief defender and executor of it. Practically, the Gibeonites deceived Joshua into this agreement. Much as it was bad to have deceived, it was the fault of Joshua that he did not confirm the claim of the Gibeonites’ representatives before entering into the agreement. Numbers 27:12-23 confirms that God had said that Joshua as national leader should depend on Eleazer using the ephod to confirm His will on any matter before acting on it. This was one instance in which there is no indication that Joshua confirmed with God before making that agreement. Apparently, because the Gibeonites were bent on getting this agreement with Joshua’s leadership of Israel, they started by recounting all the things that God had helped them to do against their enemies since the time of Moses’ leadership dispensation. This compliment pumped up satisfaction and confidence in Joshua’s thoughts to the extent that he did not confirm God’s approval of their peace proposal.
This is not to say that God might have stopped him from agreeing with them considering that God had said through Moses in Deuteronomy 20:10-13 the Israelites should let any enemy nation that surrenders to them willingly live and serve them. Also, the Gibeonites had done one thing that God regard highly, they had acknowledged the Lord God of Israel and determined to come under His cover for protection so that they would not suffer the fate of the other nations that He had helped the Israelites raging army to demolish at the time. We say this because the Lord extended favour to a resentable prostitute named Rahab while destroying the city of Jericho just because she sought His protection just before the destruction of her native people of Jericho. Yet, Joshua should have still confirmed. Whether God would approve or not it is still best to confirm before venturing into implementing any idea either conceived or proposed by others. I Kings 14:8 and 15:5a say that one of the greatest attitude that endeared David to God’s heart was that he would not do anything without first confirming God’s approval. This includes that even if the issue looked good naturally and even agreed with God’s word, he would still ask if God approves of it in the circumstance and context in which he wanted to act on it.
On the part of Saul, he did not consider that zeal was not enough to protect his subjects. II Samuel 21:1-2 says that it was because of his zeal for the Israelites that he made the mistake of attacking and massacering the Gibeonites without mercy. Israel’s agreement with the Gibeonites was noted in the Sacred Books. Deuteronomy 17:18-19 says that, as king of Israel, he should have a copy and read from it regularly. And I Samuel 10:20-25 suggests that when Saul emerged as king, Samuel played his part by making a copy of the Sacred Books available for Saul to guide him. First, it suggests that Saul did not read from this book regularly, or did not understand what he read from it, or did not wait to confirm the manner of relationship he should maintain with the Gibeonites before he went out to destroy them. That is what I call “Injurious Ignorance” and “Ever Infamous, Inglorious and Injurious Ignorance”. Another possibility is that Saul saw that the Gibeonites were easy prey and should use them to reassure the Israelites that he was their capable king. This is vital because I Samuel 10:17-27 and 11 confirm that his first challenge as king was legitimacy based on the fact that some Israelites claimed that they do not think that he was competent to rule them and free them from their enemies. This must have been the deep seated reason Saul fought against the Gibeonites that he was not supposed to afflict in any form.
I Samuel 11 – 12 says that in God’s effort to make the Israelites accept Saul as the king He had provided them, He helped Saul to defeat the Ammonites. That is, God used this defeat to impress the Israelites to accept Saul as their king. This did not mean that Saul should have taken it upon himself to destroy the Gibeonites in order to further impress the Israelites. This makes it appear as if following God is complicated to the human nature in this respect. Yet, it merely means that man have to depend on His guidance every time and never taking anything for granted. When David would depend on Him to recover his loot from the Amalekite raiders, I Samuel 30 says that David confirmed every detail from God before he set out. II Samuel 5:8-17 and I Chronicles 14:17-25 confirm that when David would defeat the Philistines in two simultanous battles to consolidate his reign on the throne in Jerusalem, he clarified with God each time. Saul was not conscious of God enough to succeed as king of Israel like David was. Anyone that wants to enjoy God must be conscious and confirm His decision before take any action. This is part of a discourse that I call “Best Before” which covers nearly every aspect of human life. In this case, it means that it is best to clarify with God before taking any action.
When David contemplated building the first Temple in Jerusalem, he shared his thoughts with one of his Prophets named Nathan. God knew that he did this because he hoped that Nathan would confirm the will of God on the matter for him. As a result, God spoke to Nathan who had given David a kind of blanket approval because it made good sense religiously. II Samuel 7 and I Chronicles 17 say that God said “Yes and No” or “Yes, But …” or yes with a proviso. The Lord God said that it was such a good idea that He would make David’s dynasty to last for ever. Yet, because David had shed too much blood it is his own son that would succeed him that would take credit for it. It was the best idea that David ever conceived in his lifetime but it is best implemeted by his successor. This means that implementation could turn an impressive idea into an injurious and inglorous one. Two main things stand out in the implementation of David’s idea of building a Temple to register his appreciation to God for making him king of Israel in his lifetime. For this reason I consider David the chief patron and founder of “Guild of God Gladdening Gratefuls” in human history. The thoughtful and wise belong to this guild in every generation. They include all those who are humble enough to acknowledge that whatever achievement, success and height of greatness they attain in life, was made possible by God maker of the universe.
God dictated the time of implementation and the suitable personality to implement – it must be during the reign of David’s successor who must be Solomon rather than any son that David already had at time of conceiving the idea. For God, these were important aspects of the idea that David conceived to His pleasant surprise. At the time David thought of the idea and mentioned it to Nathan, he did not know that these aspects (terms and conditions) would be important to God whom he was eager to thank. This is one reason it seems right to ask the person that you think deserve your gratitude how he or she would prefer what you hoped to do. It would have been disastrous for David to insist on taking the credit for it just because he conceived the idea and got the materials, confirmed the site and got the designs ready. The external support for this project from King Hiram of Tyre was based on his cordial relationship with him not Solomon’s. In fact, I Chronicles 22 – 26 say that David organised the duties of the religious leaders that would officiate in the Temple before he died, and Solomon built and dedicated the Temple.
David exemplified the fact that whoever wants to please God should actually confirm and accept whatever God indicates as His preference on any matter. This was one of the greatest undoings of King Hezekiah when he learnt of God’s will for his life, he prayed to God against it. And lack of true understanding make some to praise this prayer of Hezekiah. Moses had done something similar in Exodus 32 which some other persons praise as a proof that he loved the Israelites selflessly. Where God’s will is concerned human thoughts and considerations are not important. Before God says anything, He have his reasons that are usually superior to man’s just as Isaiah 55:8-11 says that God’s thoughts are far higher than humans and His words cannot be hindered from been established by mankind. But man get so emotional that he thinks that perhaps God did not remember some of the factors surrounding the issue He had decided upon. If Hezekiah had agreed to die when God first decided, Manasseh would not have been born and therefore would not have reversed all the religious achievements that Hezekiah made as a ‘logical tender’ to exchange God’s will and word through the Prophet Isaiah for his shortsighted wishes for longevity. Moses and Hezekiah’s prayers are among the most prayerless prayers ever made in the Holy Bible.
It could be that some ideas that failed to endure and achieve the aim and objectives of those that conceived them, did partly because of their timing and implementors. Good ideas, but timed wrongly. There are persons who would conceive good projects for their hometown and use their privilege position to execute it and the project would not function beyond their lifetime. In some cases it would even die in their lifetime. It could be that the right time for such project to thrive in his or her hometown was not ripe. The fact that God put an idea in your heart does not mean that it is meant for immediate implementation. God factor is important in any human idea no matter how impressive.
