If you grew up in Sunday School the story is familiar. The beginning of David’s story normally is all about how Samuel comes to make a sacrifice and God rejects all of David’s brothers but still says there is a “son of Jesse” to be chosen. So, they have to go get David in from the hills. Then when David is anointed and the Teacher says to all the children, “Now why did God choose David?” Of course, all the children must respond, “Cause God looks at the heart.” Teacher, “And what did God see when he looked at David?” The children reply, “A man after God’s own heart.”
There are serious problems with seeing David this way and it has real implications as to how we view authority and accountability. The implication we tend to give children (and adults if we’re honest), is that God gave the kingship to David because of who David was. The implication being God chose David because of David’s special love for God. The problem is that this contradicts the entire narrative of the Old Testament.
Whose Heart are We Talking About?
When it comes to the verse that is in question 1 Samuel 13:14 the ESV renders it thus, “But now your kingdom shall not continue. The LORD has sought out a man after his own heart, and the LORD has commanded him to be prince over his people, because you have not kept what the LORD commanded you.” The problem is that in the Hebrew the word “after” simply isn’t there. The most literal translation of בִּקֵּשׁ֩ יְהוָ֨ה ל֜וֹ אִ֣ישׁ כִּלְבָב֗וֹ וַיְצַוֵּ֨הוּ יְהוָ֤ה לְנָגִיד֙ עַל־עַמּ֔וֹ כִּ֚י לֹ֣ would be, “The LORD seeks a man as my heart chooses that the LORD commanded to be prince over my people.” The problem is in the intention of the statement. Is God saying, “I’m going to find a man who’s heart is like mine.” Or is it, “I’m going to choose a king who I desire”.
This leads us to the context of when and why God through Samuel makes this statement. One of the themes of Saul’s kingship is that he’s a king who is chosen by the people for the wrong reasons. Layton Talbert observes, “When Israel first demanded a king, they wanted one “like” all the other nations (1 Sam 8:5), a king who would rule them “like” all the other nations so that they could be “like” all the other nations (1 Sam 8:20). Literally, “appoint for us [לָּ֥נוּ] a king to judge us like all [כְּכָל] the nations.” The word “like” translates the Hebrew preposition (כְּ) attached as a prefix to the word “all.” Literally, they wanted a king “in accordance with” or “according to” what the other nations had. And that’s what they got—the best Israel had to offer at the time that would be “like” or “according to” all the other nations.” Saul is who the people wanted, and his actions reflected that. As God is removing his blessing from Saul God is essentially saying, “The people chose you not me”. There is also a bit of a dig in Saul’s major character flaw, his fear of the people. God is choosing someone who not only He chooses, but who He commands not the people.
Talbert also notes there is a real problem with assuming God was talking about David’s heart- he hadn’t even been born yet. So, we would be in weird predestination territory if God not only foreknew David and knew of David’s eventual love for Him, so He chooses David for that reason.
What’s more, David himself (using the exact same language except for the pronoun) sees God’s decision as God choosing David, “Because of your promise, and according to your own heart, you have brought about all this greatness, to make your servant know it. (2 Sam. 7:21)” This understanding is important because David sees the Covenantal connection between him and God’s actions with Israel.
A Representative Israel
This is where we have to understand that David is a “type” of Israel in God’s covenantal progression. There is a very big, very broad covenant with Abraham. That then is localized with the people of Israel as God’s people. This is then intensified to one king and royal family line, David. Yet God throughout the Old Testament states clearly that, “It was not because you were more in number than any other people that the LORD set his love on you and chose you, for you were the fewest of all peoples, but it is because the LORD loves you and is keeping the oath that he swore to your fathers, that the LORD has brought you out with a mighty hand and redeemed you from the house of slavery, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.”
The point of God’s covenant with His people is that He doesn’t choose the “deserving”. This gets pointed out again in Mal. 1:2, “’I have loved you,’ says the LORD. But you say, ‘How have you loved us?’ “Is not Esau Jacob’s brother?’ declares the LORD. “Yet I have loved Jacob.’” Paul notes this dynamic in Romans 9:13, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” Paul also points out why that is, “So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.” God chooses the outcasts, the unlikely, even the unworthy precisely so that no one can say they “deserve” God’s mercy.
This is the story we see in David’s “coronation”. I believe we want to read a bit of Western Arthurian imagery into David’s story where the protagonist is somehow deemed “worthy” to draw the proverbial “sword” of kingship. However, the emphasis is on David’s unworthiness. He’s the youngest, the least attractive, and doing a despised job. When David is anointed… nothing happens. Then David defeats Goliath… not much happens. Then David is wrongly oppressed and spends a long time in the wilderness, sound familiar? The point of David’s story isn’t that he’s destined to be king, it’s that he’s supposed to look like Israel. Even in his failure (read more about that here).
Consequences for Today’s Leadership
What are the problems with assuming David “was a man after God’s heart”? After all we know David loved God, does it matter that we assume God chose David for that love? The biggest problem I’ve seen over the years is the excuse of poor leadership that uses the assumption that God either chose David or allowed David to remain in his kingship because David “was a man after God’s own heart”.
The first way I’ve seen this operate is to excuse poor leadership, or poor performance in a leader to suggest that God wouldn’t have given that person that leadership without that person having some kind of “God seen” inner quality. The implication being that God doesn’t allow leaders of His people to come to power unless they are “special” and that someone’s shortcomings aren’t reflective of their character. So, for example you could have a pastor who has a temper problem who berates and belittles his staff, but he has “such a heart for the gospel” and that is why “like David” God chose them for leadership. The problem with this is it ignores pretty much the whole of Israel’s kingship including David. Throughout the entire Bible God allowing someone to come to a position of power doesn’t mean God approved of their character. In fact, in most cases He doesn’t. There are any number of priests, Judges, Kings, that God even set’s up over His people that God then condemns for their actions. What God judges them for is the same thing we have to judge those in leadership, their actions.
This gets close to the second thing I’ve seen used “man after God’s own heart” and that is the minimization if not excusing of sin. Someone sins grievously (normally a leader) and it is suggested that person loved God AND sinned since David sinned grievously and was still “a man after God’s heart”. This absolutely minimizes the horror and depravity of David’s sin. It assumes that while David abused his authority to have sex with his friend and advisor’s granddaughter, killed an innocent man, ordered his daughter to go to her rapist, ignored justice in Israel, killed thousands in both his civil war and his illegal census, David still was a “man after God’s heart”. As David is sinning against people and causing unthinkable death and suffering he’s still expressing “God’s heart”? What a dismissal of the pain of those who are victims!
Or is it more accurate to say that God in staying true to His promise and His word to David is treating David like He has treated Israel? Would it not make more sense for a people who themselves had gone into exile for their sins see the BEST king they ever had not be abandoned by God even though David’s sin rated death (at least, something David agreed upon)?
Something changes when we look at authority, wealth and power as unmerited gifts God gives rather than “earned” by someone’s gifts or personality. No one “deserves” a platform. Much less a lucrative one that includes multiple revenue streams, travel and popularity/notoriety. When someone “falls” the appropriate thing to do is remove that unmerited favor from them. It doesn’t mean they can’t be forgiven. It doesn’t mean they cannot be accepted into the community if repentant. It means they no longer enjoy the privileges they no longer warrant. More than that it is dangerous for them, they have not been faithful with little or much, how dangerous to give them that trust again. The person who has been found unfaithful shouldn’t be given “grace” because they somehow deserve it. They get “grace” precisely because they don’t deserve it and “grace” and “trust” are two different things. No leader or pastor has a representative role among God’s people. In short (as many like to say), “You’re not David.”
(Thanks for reading! I’m always grateful for those who lend me their time. If you want to get my latest please subscribe and consider supporting me in making this content. If you’d like to gift a one-time gift of coffee or dinner, that would also be appreciated https://venmo.com/u/Jason-Mallow-1 Lord willing I’ll see you again next week)