“If your enemy is hungry, give him food to eat; if he is thirsty, give him water to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head, and the Lord will reward you” (Proverbs 25:21-22).

From a Christian perspective, the proverb’s admonition that we give food and water to our enemies so that “burning coals” will be heaped upon them may seem strange indeed.  Helping someone just to bring punishment on the person seems contradictory to most biblical teachings, yet this exact Old Testament proverb is also cited in the New Testament –  by the apostle Paul:

If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord. On the contrary: “If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head” (Romans 12:18-20).

But we do not need to understand this proverb literally in order to understand its message. If we look at it in its original setting in the Book of Proverbs, we find that it occurs in a group of sayings that all use physical imagery to describe emotional conditions.  Proverbs 25:20 – the proverb directly before the one we are looking at – tells us, for example: “ Like one who takes away a garment on a cold day, or like vinegar poured on a wound, is one who sings songs to a heavy heart.”  Proverbs 25:23 –  the saying directly after the one we want to understand –  likewise tells us: “Like a north wind that brings unexpected rain is a sly tongue — which provokes a horrified look.”  All of these proverbs are not to be understood literally, rather they are meant to supply a graphic image of what a given feeling is like.

In Proverbs 25:22 we are given an analogy showing what the emotional feeling will often be like for someone who is treated kindly despite their own behavior toward the person showing the kindness.  In a great many cases that feeling will be one of emotional discomfort – the flush of acute embarrassment –  that might well be symbolized by having “burning coals” tipped upon the person’s head.  There are other examples of the metaphorical use of “burning coals” in the Scriptures, as in 2 Samuel 14:7 which uses the image of a “burning coal” to  represent a person’s heir, but the meaning of the expression in Proverbs 25 is clearly that of a feeling of  emotional embarrassment and perhaps guilt. 

There is a wonderful example of this principle and its effect in the Book of 2 Kings (6:8-23) which tells the story of how the Prophet Elisha asked God to strike an Aramean army that was invading Israel with blindness.  When the enemy soldiers did become blind, rather than having them killed as many expected, Elisha led them to Israel’s capital city Samaria where he instructed the king of Israel to “Set food and water before them so that they may eat and drink and then go back to their master” (2 Kings 6:22). This is the exact application of the principle of giving food and drink to one’s enemies, in this case to those who had sought to harm the people of Israel.
 
Not surprisingly, when the sight of the enemy warriors was restored and they had been fed “a great feast” by those they originally intended to harm, we read that: “after they had finished eating and drinking, he sent them away, and they returned to their master. So the bands from Aram stopped raiding Israel’s territory” (2 Kings 6:23). The Aramean warriors who had been treated in this way felt great embarrassment at the kindness of those they had considered enemies and that feeling doubtless was responsible for their cessation of hostilities.

That is why the apostle Paul could cite Proverbs 25:21-22 as a practical example of not being overcome by evil, but overcoming evil with good (Romans 12:21).  The principle of embarrassment also underlies Paul’s words to the Thessalonian church:  “Take special note of anyone who does not obey our instruction in this letter. Do not associate with them, in order that they may feel ashamed” (2 Thessalonians 3:14).   Paul knew that it is better, where possible, to embarrass others with right behavior than to ignore or reciprocate their wrongdoing.  “Heaping burning coals” in the context that Paul uses the expression clearly means to cause temporary emotional discomfort that may lead to good.

The Book of 1 Kings tells us that near the beginning of his reign, King Solomon had his own brother Adonijah executed  (1 Kings 2:13-25). Solomon is praised for his godliness at this point of his life (1 Kings 3:3).  Why would he do such a thing?

Adonijah was the fourth son of King David and an elder brother to Solomon, who inherited David’s throne according to his father’s wishes.   But after the death of his own elder brothers, Amnon and Absalom, Adonijah considered himself the heir to the throne (1 Kings 1:5).

When David was near death, Adonijah invited his younger brothers (except Solomon) and many of the chief officials of the kingdom to a sacrificial feast to announce his intention to take the throne.  But the prophet Nathan warned David through Bathsheba, Solomon’s mother, and David gave orders that Solomon immediately be proclaimed king.

At this point Adonijah asked for mercy from Solomon – who pardoned him on condition that he showed himself worthy in his behavior (1 Kings 1:50-53).  But not long after this, Solomon executed Adonijah over an incident that might seem difficult to understand.  Adonijah went to Solomon’s mother, Bathsheba, and persuaded her to ask the king on his behalf for permission to marry a young woman named Abishag.  Bathsheba agreed and asked Solomon, who reacted strongly and ordered Adonijah’s death. 

But there is more to the story than meets the eye.  Abishag was not just any young woman. She was the virgin who had been selected from David’s harem to sleep alongside the aged king (without any sexual intimacy) to help keep him warm at night due to his poor circulation (1 Kings 1:1-4).  But in the cultures of the ancient Near East, a king’s wives and concubines were considered part of the royal household inherited by the next king (2 Samuel 12:8).

The Greek historian Herodotus records this fact in saying that among the Persians a new king inherited the previous king’s harem and that to possess a king’s wife was as good as having  title to the throne.  In Israel, this had in fact been one of Adonijah’s older brother Absalom’s tactics when he attempted to take the throne of David (2 Samuel 16:22).  So Adonijah knew that since the young woman Abishag was part of David’s harem, if he were to marry her it would strengthen his claim to the throne considerably.

That is why Solomon reacted so strongly – and why he told his mother Bathsheba “…Why do you request Abishag the Shunammite for Adonijah? You might as well request the kingdom for him …” (1 Kings 2:22).  Solomon knew that this was no simple request, and that the devious Adonijah was clearly continuing his attempts to take over the throne. The Book of 1 Kings also shows that Solomon was aware that Adonijah was being supported by one of the military commanders, Joab, and by one of the chief priests, Abiathar – which is why the king also told his mother: “You might as well request the kingdom for him [Adonijah] and for Abiathar the priest and Joab son of Zeruiah!” (1 Kings 2:22).

Solomon’s mother, Bathsheba, was used as an unwitting accomplice in Adonijah’s scheming, but the Scriptures record that Solomon saw through the plot and acted decisively when it became apparent that his brother continued his plotting to take the throne.
​
Sadly, this incident may have brought to a final fulfillment the curse King David had called down upon himself years earlier when he responded to the prophet Nathan’s story of a man who stole his neighbor’s lamb.  That story was actually a parable representing David’s stealing of the wife of the faithful soldier Uriah, and the king (not realizing he spoke of himself)  had replied  that the guilty man must pay fourfold for his sin (2 Samuel 12:1-6).  It is perhaps not coincidence that David’s four eldest sons, ending with Adonijah, met untimely deaths.  But in any event, it is clear that although he was granted mercy by Solomon, Adonijah continued to scheme to build power to take over the throne for himself – and in this way caused his own demise.  ​

When the Jewish religious leaders questioned John the Baptist about his identity, he told them he was not the Messiah (the Christ), Elijah, or “the Prophet.”  These were three figures mentioned in the Scriptures who the Jews believed would be revealed in the end time: the longed for Messiah (Isaiah 11:1-10, etc.), a second “Elijah” (Malachi 4:5-6), and a great prophet “like Moses” (Deuteronomy 18:15).   From our perspective as Christians today, we know the Messiah was, of course, Jesus. 

We also know that just as Elijah was a forerunner of his successor Elisha, John the Baptist was a forerunner of Jesus (Isaiah 40:3, John 3:30); and in that way and others, John fulfilled the role of a second Elijah (Matthew 11:7–14, Luke 1:17).  But the prophecy of the second Elijah could also be applied to Jesus himself, who did many of the same signs as Elijah in his ministry (2 Kings 2:11, etc.).

But that leaves the expected “Prophet.” Was that individual a second Jeremiah or other Old Testament prophet, as many of the Jews of Christ’s time thought?  Or could the prophecy relate to some modern day spiritual leader, as some religious groups have claimed – or even the prophet Mohammed, as many Muslims claim?

There was certainly confusion as to the identity of “the prophet” in the time of Jesus. The Jews knew that Moses had told their ancestors “The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your fellow Israelites. You must listen to him” (Deuteronomy 18:15). But some thought that prophet would be synonymous with the Messiah, while others thought he would be a different individual. Some understood the words “God will raise up” a prophet to mean that God would resurrect one of the Old Testament prophets such as Isaiah or Jeremiah, which is why we read in Matthew’s Gospel that when Jesus asked his disciples who people thought he was, they replied, “…Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets” (Matthew 16:14).

However, the New Testament clearly shows that the prophet spoken of by Moses was not one of the individuals active in Old Testament times (much less some more recent or modern individual), but Jesus Christ himself.  Jesus plainly stated that Moses wrote about him: “If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me” (John 5:46).  The disciple Philip told Nathaniel: “We have found the one Moses wrote about in the Law ..” (John 1:45).

If we believe what the Scriptures say regarding the eventual appearance of another prophet like Moses, we must also believe what the Bible says in telling us who that prophet was.  In his great Pentecost sermon the apostle Peter confirmed that the prophet was Christ himself:

“… that he may send the Messiah, who has been appointed for you—even Jesus. Heaven must receive him until the time comes for God to restore everything, as he promised long ago through his holy prophets. For Moses said, ‘The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own people; you must listen to everything he tells you. Anyone who does not listen to him will be completely cut off from their people’”(Acts 3:20-23).

So the New Testament makes it clear that the prophet to come was neither one of the Old Testament prophets nor any individual after the time of Jesus.  The Messiah, the Elijah, and the Prophet like Moses are all clearly identified in the New Testament.   In some ways, Jesus Christ fulfilled the promised roles of all these individuals, though we have seen that John the Baptist did fulfill at least a partial role as a second Elijah.
​
Interestingly, in the transfiguration of Jesus before his chief disciples (Matthew 17:1–8, Mark 9:2–8, Luke 9:28–36), Jesus appeared in a glorified state along with Elijah and Moses.  The vision of these three individuals is not coincidental and reflects the Jewish expectation and longing for the Messiah, a second Elijah, and the Prophet like Moses. When we understand this, we realize that the transfiguration revealed Jesus not only as being with Elijah and Moses, but also as a manifestation of the Messiah, the Elijah, and the Prophet like Moses.

Many of us have speculated on the expression and wondered – why would David be described as a man after God’s own heart – something not said of other great biblical figures?  What earned David that description?  Was it his total commitment to God or some other aspect of his character?

It is actually likely that no aspect of David’s character is in mind, and that it is God who is the focus of this verse.   The expression “the LORD has sought out a man after his own heart” reflects a standard ancient Near Eastern manner of expressing someone’s desires and wishes – things they wanted “in their own heart.”   Ancient Babylonian texts use the same expression of a god or a king installing a ruler of their choice.   In fact, the Nebuchadnezzar Chronicle (c. 599 BC) of the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar II tells how that king conquered Jerusalem and replaced the Jewish king Jeconiah with a king of his own choice – Zedekiah – exactly as recorded in the Bible (2 Kings 24:17).

In both the Bible and the texts of the nations that surrounded ancient Israel, the expression simply means that the new king would be to the liking of the one installing him. It is also paralleled  by the biblical description of God’s replacement of the High Priest Eli with Samuel: “I will raise up for myself a faithful priest, who will do according to what is in my heart and mind. I will firmly establish his priestly house, and they will minister before my anointed one always” (1 Samuel 2:35).

So the expression “a man after his own heart” used of David in 1 Samuel 13:14 is not saying that David’s “heart” or attitude  was somehow like that of God, that he was a man of extraordinary righteousness or moral excellence,  but that God had chosen someone according  to his own heart or wishes – someone he felt he could trust to be obedient and to do the work he was given to do.

That is why in the New Testament in Paul’s speech at Antioch, the apostle  said: “After removing Saul, he made David their king. God testified concerning him: ‘I have found David son of Jesse, a man after my own heart; he will do everything I want him to do” (Acts 13:22).  It is not that God had found David to be “like his own heart,” but that he had chosen a man according to his own wishes.

Finally, the Bible’s chronological notations show that although David was about twenty-three years old when he became king, he was only a very young child when Saul was told that God had selected someone “after his own heart.”  David had not yet had time to demonstrate his character in order to qualify as someone with traits like those of God. Rather, 1 Samuel 13:14 means that God was intent on installing a king according to his own standards rather than according to the desires of the Israelites who had clamored for a king just like those of the nations around them (1 Samuel 8:5).  A man of powerful presence, yet with pride and many other failings, Saul was exactly the type of leader Israel’s neighbors had. 
​  
God then chose not a typical leader, as Saul had been, but someone of his own choosing who would be a better ruler.  The Old Testament shows that many aspects of David’s character were indeed admirable and that he did rule over Israel wisely and well, but the verse we have examined does not address that fact. It simply shows that God chose David, not why David was chosen.  ​​​​

Many of us are familiar with children’s books illustrating the biblical story of David and the giant Goliath (1 Samuel 17:4–7) – with pictures showing the young David overshadowed by a huge figure perhaps twice as tall as himself.

​Giants are first mentioned in the Old Testament as early as Genesis 6, where we are told “There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward…”  But are these stories of giants just “tall tales” as many presume –  or, if they are based in fact, what exactly are the stories talking about?
  
The word in Genesis 6:4 translated “giant” in the King James Version and some other versions of the Bible is the Hebrew word nephilim, and the actual meaning of the word is unknown – which is why it is simply left untranslated in most modern versions such as the  NIV, ESV, HCSB, etc. 

The “Nephilim” are also mentioned later in the Scriptures.  When the Israelite spies returned from their reconnaissance in the Promised Land, they reported: “We saw the Nephilim there (the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim). We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them” (Numbers 13:33). This description does make the Nephilim sound like giants. 

But in the book of Ezekiel the Nephilim are spoken of simply as great warriors: “But they do not lie with the fallen warriors of old [Hebrew Nephilim], who went down to the realm of the dead with their weapons of war – their swords placed under their heads and their shields resting on their bones – though these warriors also had terrorized the land of the living” (Ezekiel 32:27).

So the exact meaning of Nephilim is uncertain – possibly the word refers to giants, or it may mean only something like mighty warriors.   It is clear, however, that some of the descendants of the Nephilim exhibited the characteristic of great height.   We are told the size of some warriors of this group, but there are still uncertainties.

Goliath, for example, is said to have been “six cubits and a span” tall (approximately 9 ft. 9 in.) according to the traditional Masoretic Hebrew text, but the Septuagint and an ancient Hebrew manuscript found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, designated 4QSama, list Goliath’s height as four cubits and a span (approximately 6 ft. 9 in.).

Yet even the great heights recorded for “giants” like Goliath are not outside of possibility.  Today, in 2017, the tallest man living is Sultan Kösen  of Turkey who was officially measured at 8 ft. 2.8 in. (251 cm.) in Ankara, Turkey, on 08 February 2011; but  Robert Wadlow, who lived in the United States 1918–1940, was measured at 8 ft. 11.1 in. (272 cm. – just a little under 9 ft. and almost as tall as even the greatest measurement found in biblical manuscripts for Goliath.
​  
Even today, some human populations are much taller than others, though gigantism of the kind recorded in the Bible is usually the result of an over-production of growth hormone in the pituitary gland.  We can conclude, therefore, that it remains uncertain whether the “Nephilim” of the biblical accounts were all extremely tall or simply mighty warriors among whom some were “giants,” but the recorded heights of the tallest of these individuals are certainly within the realm of actual possibility.  

When we compare Joshua 17:18 and Judges 1:19 it might appear that – despite God’s promise of victory over the iron chariots of the Canaanites – the Israelites were unable to defeat this enemy and their formidable war chariots. But there are several possible explanations for this apparent contradiction of God’s promise.

First, we should carefully consider the actual wording of God’s promise.  In Joshua 17:18 the Israelites were told that the mountain country to its “farthest extent” would be given to them.  This does not specifically say that the Israelites would be helped against the Canaanites beyond the mountain region.  When we turn to Judges 1:19, we find that Israel could not drive out the Canaanites with their iron-armored chariots from the lowlands. In other words, the region in question was not the mountainous region of the Promised Land, but the flat coastal plain.

Another reason why there may be no conflict between the two verses is that Judges 1:19 was written some time after Joshua 17:18. God’s promise to drive out the Canaanites may have been fulfilled, but it clearly was not a promise in perpetuity.  We know that Canaanites were able to move back into the land as time went on, after Israel had taken control of the area.  So Judges 1 may refer to Israel’s failure to establish lasting control of the lowland areas.

We should always remember the principle of conditionality behind the type of promise made in Joshua 17:18.  God promised the Israelites that he would assist them and be with them in battle as long as they obeyed him, but he also made it clear that he would withdraw his help if they turned from him.  In fact, we find a specific reference to the failure of the Israelites to drive out the Canaanites from some areas in exactly this context in the Book of Judges:

“… I brought you up out of Egypt and led you into the land I swore to give to your ancestors. I said, ‘I will never break my covenant with you, and you shall not make a covenant with the people of this land, but you shall break down their altars.’ Yet you have disobeyed me. Why have you done this? And I have also said, ‘I will not drive them out before you; they will become traps for you, and their gods will become snares to you’” (Judges 2:1-3 NIV, emphasis added).
​
So, despite the original promise given to Israel in Joshua 17:18, we see that God rescinded his promise when Israel did not obey him.  This is a principle we find repeatedly throughout the Old Testament, and it is provides a lesson for us today. We cannot claim the blessings God promises in his word if we are not willing to live according to that word.