“… the LORD has sought out a man after his own heart  and appointed him ruler of his people …” (1 Samuel 13:14).
 
This is a verse that often comes to mind when we think about the character of David, king of ancient Israel, writer of so many of the Bible’s psalms, and ancestor of Jesus Christ himself.  Yet the expression “a man after [God’s] own heart” probably does not mean what we often think it means at all.

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.  ​​​​

Scripture in Focus:  “There were giants on the earth in those days, and also after that…” (Genesis 6:4 KJV).

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.  

“… the mountain country shall be yours. Although it is wooded, you shall cut it down, and its farthest extent shall be yours; for you shall drive out the Canaanites, though they have iron chariots and are strong”
​(Joshua 17:18 NKJV).
​
“So the Lord was with Judah. And they drove out the mountaineers, but they could not drive out the inhabitants of the lowland, because they had chariots of iron” (Judges 1:19 NKJV).

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.

​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.