Thread on David and Goliath (1 Samuel 17)

The combat is over in just one verse, so why take 58 verses to tell the story?

There's much more here than meets the eye.

Why do people always tell the story without the cheese (v. 18)?

#dontforgetthecheese
#davidandgoliath

The chapter begins with the Philistines invading Judah.

Philistines and Israelites face each other from their vantage points on the two sides of the Valley of Elah.

The Philistines have a big guy named Goliath on their side (v. 4).

Interestingly, after initially being named, he generally just gets called 'the Philistine' (e.g. v. 10). He no doubt thinks his name/reputation are important. The narrator doesn't.

The name Goliath is interesting as a very similar shaped name has been discovered in Gath, showing the name is linguistically plausible: https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/gath.wordpress.com/2006/02/16/comment-on-the-news-item-in-bar-on-the-goliath-inscription/amp/

He has 3 sorts of armour (helmet, body armour, greaves, vv. 5-6). We will see many sets of 3 in this story, which facilitate memory.

He likewise has 3 offensive weapons: spear, sword and something on his back.

In my youth I spent lots of time writing about Hebrew weapons.

My 13-page article on the weapon on Goliath's back is here:

http://www.sahd.divinity.cam.ac.uk/kidonUNI.pdf 

I wrote about various other weapons here:

http://www.sahd.divinity.cam.ac.uk/words.htm 

I take it that the shaft of Goliath's spear being like a weaver's beam meant that it had a cord for throwing at distance.

It's wrong to think that David was the only one with a distance weapon ( @Gladwell).

Goliath had a shield-bearer *in front of him* (v. 7).

The shield-bearer is not an armour-bearer, who hands Goliath tools he wants, but someone who shields Goliath from attack.

They knew of bow & arrow back then.

1 Kings 10:16-17 give us 2 different Hebrew words for 2 different sizes of shield. The one here is the bigger one.

Goliath defies Israel, & they are afraid.

V. 12 changes scene to David, who's shepherding. This is an ideal picture for a ruler too.

Meanwhile his 3 (NB 3 again) oldest brothers are fighting (or perhaps not!).

V. 15 says that he's travelling between his palace job & the flock.

Then after 40 days (a good Bible number for periods of testing), Jesse decides to send David. We know he could have sent others because David left the sheep with a keeper.

Jesse sends David with *three* kinds of food. Bread & parched grain for brothers & 10 cheeses for the commander.

Here the best gift is for the important dude, because Jesse knows the rule in life of showing favouritism to those in power.

Too much cheese for the commander.

TBC

David gets up early, responsibly leaving the sheep with a keeper (v. 20).

His arrival is perfectly timed, as battle lines are being drawn up.

Also responsibly, David leaves the provisions with the keeper of the baggage (v. 22).

Enter Goliath, named for the last time.

Goliath makes his usual speech, and the men of Israel flee.

Their parting words 'Have you seen this man?' (v. 25) hint at the theme from 16:7 that 'man looks on the outward appearance'. More of that soon.

They also announce the *three* part reward for anyone who defeats him.

Wealth

The king's daughter

Freedom from taxes for the family

David immediately gets others to repeat the reward (v. 26), and then asks again (v. 30), so we know he's heard of the reward *three* times.

David is portrayed as almost flawless in this passage, but his first ever recorded words (v. 26) display a weakness which will grow in the succeeding chapters.

He says 2 things in this order (my words):

1. What's in it for me?
2. Who is this upstart that he should defy God?

First words are important. Over his life, David gets too used to creature comforts, and this is his downfall.

Yet his second question is beautiful.

Others are overwhelmed by Goliath's outward appearance, but David sees the invisible (that he's uncircumcised). He's a nobody.

Big bro Eliab heard of David inquiring about the reward.

Eliab knew that David had been anointed by Samuel (16:13, 'he anointed him in the midst of his brothers').

But Eliab despises the Lord's annointed and is angry.

Surely he should have been angry about Goliath.

Anyway, Eliab asks 'Why have you come down?'

Feel free to supply answers:

cos Dad said

to give you food, mate

to give Dad a report

because of the amazing superintendence of divine providence

cos you're not doing your job of defeating Philistines...

Next Eliab asks 'with whom have you left those few sheep in the wilderness?'

We know the answer to that from v. 20.

Tricky balance for Eliab: he has to belittle David's job ('those few sheep') at the same time as making it sound very important that he didn't leave them.

Of course, good shepherds never leave sheep unattended...which makes Luke 15:4 surprising...but I digress...

Eliab, of course, has *three* things to say:

#3 'I know your presumption and the evil of your heart, for you have come down to see the battle.'

Interesting: Eliab thinks he knows what's in David's heart when we know about Eliab's heart.

See 16:7

God said to Samuel:

'Do not look on his appearance or on the height of his stature, because I have rejected him. For the Lord sees not as man sees: man looks on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart.'

Eliab thought the problem was with David's heart, when the problem was with his.

This is often the case with us.

We project bad motives onto others, when the problem is with us.

Eliab looks on the outward appearance of David & sees a little brother, not the Lord's anointed.

'you've come down to see the battle'.

Your little brother sees more clearly than you, mate.

Also, Eliab, it's not exactly clear that you haven't turned battle into a spectator sport these last 40 days...

News of David's inquiry about the reward reaches Saul, who sends for him.

We expect Saul (as king) to speak first, but David (king in waiting) initiates conversation.

David says that, even though the Philistine is not yet dead, already no one should fear.

He (Saul's servant) will fight.

Saul, looking firmly on David's outward appearance, objects that David is too young and inexperienced.

To this, David explains his experience with at least one lion and one bear.

Shame it wasn't caught on #YouTube

Now any sensible shepherd would know that lambing season is coming again soon, so if a lion really has a lamb in its mouth the poor thing is so damaged it's not worth rescuing.

It's certainly not worth risking your own safety for a lamb.

Who will guard the flock if you die?

Shepherds should surely think strategically.

Look after your own safety. Then you'll be able to maximize the number of sheep you can look after.

#DeadShepherdsAreNoUse

But no. The Good Shepherd does not act for self-preservation (John 10:11).

David's technique was to chase the lion/bear and hit it.

Said beast would then drop lammie, but its mouth would now be freed up for other purposes.

Next step: grab the creature's hair and smite (hard), repeatedly if necessary.

But David doesn't attribute success to technique, but to God.

'The Lord who delivered me from the hand of the lion & the hand of the bear will deliver me from the hand of the Philistine.'

Decide whether lions have hands or Philistines have paws. Then translate consistently

The Philistine's defeat is inevitable because he has defied the armies of the living God (17:36).

This is the recipe to be a #loser

Saul tells David to go and wishes that the Lord be with him (which he will be).

David tries on Saul's armour but rejects it, not because it's too big (as in some picture Bibles) but because he hasn't tried/tested it.

Saul's armour is a bit like Goliath's but not as good. Soon David will have Jonathan's armour (18:4).

The armour incident shows many things, including that David did not yet know how he was going to defeat Goliath.

He took his staff, because he didn't know he wasn't going to get to hand to hand combat.

He took 5 stones, because he didn't know that #1 would work.

He was trusting God to work through his tested we experience.

He comes near to the Philistine. One strike of the iron tipped spear and he's a gonner.

Now it's Goliath's turn to look on David's outward appearance. He disdains him.

'Am I a dog that you come to me with sticks?'

'Er, Big Guy, it's not the stick (btw there's only 1) you need to be worried about.'

'Also, you may not be a dog, but you are unclean/uncircumcised.'

Goliath (v. 44): 'I'll make you into a meal for the birds and beasts.'

David (v. 46): You'll make a bigger meal, especially when we include the entire Philistine army.'

David: 'You've got *3* physical weapons. But I come in the name of the Lord of hosts=armies=supernatural-military-capability-formations-which-make-your-kit-look-like-toys.'

'Btw it was a bad idea to insult their Commander-in-Chief. He intends to demonstrate his power today.'

After the pre-combat speeches (see also the #Iliad), v. 48 speeds things up.

The Philistine arose (had he previously been sitting?) and came near.

David ran. Presumably David therefore ends up closest to the Philistine lines.

CLIMAX: David wins. First stone. The only unguarded spot. Guy with armour some see as serpentine has head crushed (Gen. 3:15).

Please don't give your kids picture Bibles which have Goliath falling backwards or the shield-bearer *behind* Goliath. He falls forwards, like Dagon.

Is Goliath now dead?

Not sure. No medic on the field, but he's certainly dead by the time his head is cut off with the very weapon in which he trusted.

The Philistines see, and flee.

They're beaten and get eaten.

They fall on the way to Shaaraim, which means 'two gates'.

Unusually, the city of #KhirbetQeiyafa has two gates, and therefore is probably #Shaaraim

V. 54 says that David brought Goliath's head to Jerusalem but put the armour in his tent.

Geography requires that this verse not be read as sequential.

But we have an interesting anticipation of David's future capital.

We don't know what happens to Saul's head (1 Sam. 31:9).

Now comes the bit which puzzles some people: vv. 55-58. Why doesn't Saul recognise David?

Read the words (three times)

'whose son?' (v. 55)

'whose son?' (v. 56)

'whose son?' (v. 58)

David replies: 'I am the *son* of your servant Jesse the Bethlehem items.'

So the question was about parentage.

Whose father's house is to be free of taxes?

Which families are intermarrying?

Saul had corresponded with Jesse in 16:19, but is a king beginning to lose grip. We can't expect him to know the fathers of all his courtiers.

But there's more:

Whose son is he?

In the next scene, Saul won't let him return to his father's house (18:2), which is a bit paternal.

Also Saul's firstborn gives him all his kit and robe (18:4), so straight after the battle David looks like Saul's son!

He'll inherit too.

Saul offers David to be his son-in-law (18:21), but ends up saying 'my son David' (24:16, 17; 26:21, 25).

These references counterbalance the earlier references to 'Jonathan my son' (14:39, 40, [Greek 41,] 42).

'my son' follows Jonathan's name and always precedes David's.