​Scripture in Focus: Psalm 92:10  
 
“But my horn shall you exalt like the horn of an unicorn: I shall be anointed with fresh oil” (Psalms 92:10 KJV).
 
This verse from the Psalms (as translated in the King James version of the Bible) is sometimes said to be an example of how the Bible contains inaccurate and unscientific statements – in this case a reference to the mythical unicorn.
 
The Hebrew word found in the text of the Bible itself (re’eym) is thought to have signified the antelope-like oryx or the wild ox, though the rhinocerous (the ultimate “unicorn”!) is also possible. The exact animal intended is unsure, but the problem is largely restricted to the King James version which translates  re’eym as “unicorn” in this verse and  in a number of other passages such as Numbers 23:22. 

Almost all modern versions translate the word re’eym as  “wild ox,”  which fits well with occurrences of its use such as Job 39:9-10: “Will the wild ox consent to serve you? Will it stay by your manger at night? Can you hold it to the furrow with a harness?  Will it till the valleys behind you?”  Although the King James version uses “unicorn” in this scripture, it is clearly the wild ox that is being contrasted with the domesticated ox. So the word “unicorn” is not really found in the Bible itself, only in the antiquated vocabulary of the KJV and some other older translations of the Bible.

As for the first part of the verse, where the Psalmist speaks of his horn being exalted, this is clearly a   figure of speech, but what does it mean?  For the ancient biblical writers  the “horn” was symbolic of an animal’s power and strength, just as the words “bow” or “sword” were often used of the strength of individuals and nations.  In fact,  the word “horn” was also  used frequently in the Bible as a simile or metaphor for an individual’s – especially a ruler’s –  strength (Daniel 8:20-22, 1 Samuel 2:10, etc.). The word is used in the same way in an allusion to the Messiah in Psalm 132:17 “…I will make a horn grow for David and set up a lamp for my anointed one.” 

So Psalms 92:10 is a good example of the need to understand both poetic usage in the Old Testament writings and the need for comparison among translations. It is certainly not a strange, mythical, or zoologically inaccurate scripture!

​ 

“Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword” (Matthew 26:52).

​
This verse is often used as a key text for pacifistic teachings, but does it really mean that any who handle weapons will die by them?  Clearly, experience shows this is not the case, so what did Jesus mean in speaking these words?

The answer is found by looking closely at both the context and the wording of Matthew 26:52.  It must be remembered that when Jesus made this statement to Peter – after the disciple drew his sword and cut off the ear of one of the men sent to arrest his master (Matthew 26:51) – it was following Jesus’ own instruction to his disciples to have a sword with them (Luke 22:36-38). 

When we look closely at the wording in Matthew 26:52 of what Jesus told Peter, we see that he did not tell him to get rid of the sword, but simply to “put it back in its place” – its sheath. In fact, the Greek is literally to “turn away” (apostrepson) the sword, meaning to turn it to a different use, to return it to its place till a more proper need arose.  Jesus then states that all who “take” (the literal meaning of the Greek) the sword will die by it.  There is a stress on the word “take,” and this seems to indicate that Jesus is talking about those who actively choose to habitually use the sword when it should not be used.
 
The context makes it clear that Jesus did not want to resist arrest – that he willingly submitted to it, although innocent, in order that his purpose could be fulfilled.   But Jesus would not have had his followers fight against the properly constituted authority in any case (John 18:36).  Besides, Peter acted impulsively and struck first – his action was not even one of defense, but an attack, which Jesus certainly rejected. Remember that two of the disciples had swords that evening (Luke 22:38), but Jesus spoke only to Peter (“your sword”) who had used the weapon he carried aggressively.

So, when viewed in context and in detail, Jesus’ words to Peter seem most naturally to mean that those who utilize the sword for improper purposes – gratuitously or against rightful authority – will suffer the penalty that will normally be the eventual result of those crimes. His words seem to have had less to do with the concept of pacifism, than they had to do with the fact that self-initiated violence causes its own punishment – something Peter needed to grasp and live by.
   
Finally, we should also understand that the words “all who take the sword will perish by the sword” are regarded by a number of scholars to have possibly been added at some time after the original composition of Matthew’s Gospel.  This and the next two verses are not found in Mark or Luke, and some suspect that these words may even have been added later based on Revelation 13:10:  “…he who kills with the sword must be killed with the sword …”   This possibility cannot be proven either way, but it is always better not to try to decide doctrinal matters based on verses that are of an unsure origin. 

Even if Matthew 26:52 is accepted as being completely authentic, its message seems most likely to have been one against the improper use of weapons, rather than against any use of weapons.

Scripture in Focus:
“[Jesus said] You go to the festival. I am not going up to this festival, because my time has not yet fully come.” After he had said this, he stayed in Galilee. However, after his brothers had left for the festival, he went also, not publicly, but in secret” (John 7:8-10).

​It is sometimes claimed that these verses show that Jesus lied in this instance, but – as with so many alleged problems in the Bible – the context of what he said and did makes the situation clear. John 7:1 tells us that at this point in Jesus’ life: “… He did not want to go about in Judea because the Jewish leaders there were looking for a way to kill him.  But when the Jewish Festival of Tabernacles was near,  Jesus’ brothers said to him, “Leave Galilee and go to Judea, so that your disciples there may see the works you do.  No one who wants to become a public figure acts in secret. Since you are doing these things, show yourself to the world.”  For even his own brothers did not believe in him” (John 7:1-5).

This background shows that Jesus had a clear reason not to openly go up to the festival in Jerusalem.  Had he travelled with his family, he would probably have been apprehended by the Jews wanting to kill him and he might well have endangered his family also.   Instead, John tells us, he went later in secret.

There are several reasons why there was undoubtedly no lie involved in these events.  From the perspective of logic alone we must realize that it is possible for anyone to say something and then later change his or her mind. That possibly happened in this case, but it seems more likely that in saying “I am not going up to this festival, because my time has not yet fully come” (vs. 8), Jesus meant that he was not yet ready to go up to the Feast of Booths.

Some early manuscripts of the Bible actually have the words “not yet going” rather than “not going,” and although it is likely that the word “yet” was added to the original text, the reading still shows that this is how the early Christians understood what Jesus was saying.

So, did Jesus lie when he said he would not go to the Feast and then later he went? Not at all. Lying involves the deliberate misleading of people, whereas Jesus may have simply changed his mind.  On the other hand, he may have meant that he was not yet going, and that may have been perfectly clear to his family at the time.

There is also another possibility.  There are clear biblical examples that show while it is wrong to lie and to speak things that are not true, it is not wrong to withhold information under circumstances where someone may be hurt if the information is given.  1 Samuel 16:2 shows that God himself utilizes this principle (see our article on this here).  If Jesus answered carefully in such a way as to not express all the facts, in order to protect his family, that is certainly not lying. The fact that John tells us when Jesus did go it was “not publicly, but in secret” (John 7:10), indicate the potential danger his family would have been in had he gone with them. 

So there are a number of possible answers to what is sometimes called an example of Jesus lying. We may not know which answer or answers apply in this case, but we can see that there are multiple reasons to believe that lying was not involved in any way. 

Scripture in Focus: “ And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it” (Matthew 16:18).  
 
There are two traditional answers to the question of who or what was the rock Christ referred to in Matthew 16:18.  Some Christians believe that Jesus was speaking to Peter, and so Peter is the rock the church would be built upon.  Other Christians believe that because the Greek word for the “rock” the Church would be built upon is petra – a “large rock” or “foundation” – and Peter’s name was petros, meaning a small rock or pebble in Greek – Christ could hardly have been speaking of Peter and must have been speaking of himself when he said “on this rock ….” (see Ephesians 2:20, etc.).

But there is another possibility which perhaps fits the context of this verse better than either of these two options, and which may be closer to the true meaning of Jesus’ words.  When we look at the context of Christ’s saying, we find it was part of a larger conversation he was having with Peter:

… Jesus … asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”  “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”  Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”   Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven.  And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.  I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”  Then he ordered his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah (Matthew 16:13-20).

The conversation begins and ends with the concept of Christ’s identity – Jesus first asks his disciples who people thought he was, and who they thought he was, then, after discussing the answers they gave, he closes the discussion by telling his disciples not to tell people who he was. When we keep this clear context of the conversation in mind, we see the subject of the whole exchange was “Who is Jesus?”

The crux of the conversation occurs when Peter volunteers “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God” (Matthew 16:16), and it is then that Jesus confirms this assessment with an exclamation that can be summarized as “exactly!”  Jesus then told Peter that this was the “rock” or “foundation” – we might say “foundational truth” – on which his Church would be built:  the fact that he was the promised Messiah, the one through whom salvation would come.

Jesus also continued with another thought about binding and loosing, probably meaning that his Church would have the power to interpret the laws of the Bible in a manner similar to the “binding’ and “loosing” power the rabbis of that age exercised to permit or forbid things (to interpret the Scriptures rather than to make new laws or annul old ones). But the fact that the focus of this statement was not entirely Peter is clear in the fact that later, addressing all the disciples, Jesus repeated the same words, “Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven” (Matthew 18:18).
​
Whatever the exact nature of the “keys of the kingdom of heaven” and the “binding and loosing” was, Jesus returned to the subject of their discussion and closed the conversation by stressing that although he was indeed the Messiah – a fact that would form the basis of his Church – the disciples were not to reveal that truth until the time was right.   

Scripture in Focus:   Matthew 11:12 

“From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven has suffered violence, and the violent take it by force” (Matthew 11:12 ESV).


This is a difficult scripture for many people to understand.  How, we might ask, could the very Kingdom of God himself be “taken” by force?  However, there are at least two possible meanings to Jesus’ words that seem to reflect what he may have meant.

Certainly the inhabitants of God’s growing Kingdom – including Jesus himself – have suffered violence at the hands of those opposed to them throughout the ages.  But if that is the meaning of the first half of the verse, does the second half of the scripture signify that the human enemies of the Kingdom would “take” it by force in the way an enemy army might “take” a castle or city it besieged? Jesus promised his followers that the very “gates of hell” would not prevail against the Church that he would build (Matthew 16:18).  Because the Church and Kingdom are intertwined in the post-New Testament era, it seems unlikely that the Kingdom of God could be overthrown by human aggression, but not the Church.

Another possibility is that Jesus meant something quite different.  The NIV and Holman versions both give a variant translation for the first half of the verse – that rather than being “subject to violence” the Kingdom of Heaven has been “forcefully advancing,” and the ESV gives the similar variant “has been coming violently.”  There are grammatical reasons why this might be correct.  The sentence can be understood as being in either “middle” or “passive” voice – both possibilities could be correct – we must choose which makes the most sense.  If we view Jesus’ statement as being in the “middle voice” (as “forcefully advancing”), the second half of the scripture “…and the violent take it by force” would then mean that those striving to enter the Kingdom are doing so.  

The New Testament commonly uses words such as “struggle,” “fight,” “wrestle” and other terms of this type to signify the Christian calling and life, and so it need not be surprising that Jesus would say the “violent take it by force” in the sense of “the energetic take the Kingdom by vigorous action.”  In that sense, the expression is not a lot different from what we see in Paul’s epistle to Timothy: “Fight the good fight of the faith. Take hold of the eternal life to which you were called …” (1Timothy 6:12a NIV).

So, understood this way, the two halves of Jesus’ statement recorded in Matthew 11:12 fit together and make good sense. It is perhaps more likely then, that rather than the Kingdom of God being susceptible to suffering violent overthrow (something which hardly applied “From the days of John the Baptist” till the ministry of Jesus), the Kingdom was indeed “forcefully advancing” at that time.  And those who were willing to forcefully act on the knowledge they had were “taking” or entering it.