1 samuel 17 - goliat (totc)

7/30/2019 1 Samuel 17 - Goliat (TOTC)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/1-samuel-17-goliat-totc 1/6

1

iii. Saul needs a warrior to fight Goliath (17:1–18:5)

This gripping story of David’s youthful faith and courage is one of the world’s

classic narratives, and one of the best-known of the Bible. It provides an

outstanding example of the Lord’s power to give [33] victory againstdramatically overwhelming odds in response to faith and courage. It does present

difficulties in relation to the previous chapter, from which it appears to be entirely

independent. It need not surprise us that David’s anointing is not mentioned,

because that was in any case private, and its purpose undisclosed, but, if the events

of 1 Samuel 16 preceded those of this chapter, the obvious question is: why did

Saul not recognize David as the one who had served him at court as both musician

and armour-bearer? It is, of course, possible to conjecture that in the meantime

David had returned to his father’s house, and had matured into a bearded adult wholooked very different from the youth of 1 Samuel 16; probably the compiler was

drawing on different sources, but the fact remains that there is no attempt in the text

to reconcile the two accounts.15

If 1 Samuel 16 originated in Bethlehem, 1 Samuel

17 would appear to belong with military records, emphasizing as it does the defeat

of the Philistines, and the disposal of Goliath’s sword.

1–3. The ongoing war with the Philistines was about to enter a new phase, to be

fought, not this time in the central hills from which the enemy had been chased

westwards, but nearer their territory on the borders of Judah. The emphatic Socoh,which belongs to Judah, shows the Philistines encroaching nevertheless. The names

Socoh and Azekeh are preserved in the names of present-day villages in the foothills

due west from Bethlehem, and the valley of Elah, in which both were situated,

drains the water from the hills into the Mediterranean during the rainy season.

4–7. A champion (Heb. îš-habb nayîm) named Goliath: the word translated

‘champion’ occurs only here in the Old Testament, but is used frequently in the

Qumran ‘War Scroll’, where it means simply ‘soldier’, ‘infantryman’. The fact that

he is selected to represent the Philistines in single combat implies a claim to the title‘champion’ [Page 134] here. Goliath is a name which has affinities with Asia

Minor. Gath, the Philistine city, was a little further west in the valley of Elah. This

local champion was chosen for his powerful stature, his height ( six cubits and a

15The Vaticanus MS of the LXX omits large portions of the chapter (1 Sam. 17:12–31; 17:55–18:5),

including some of the passages which highlight the discrepancies. However, the Hebrew text is

consistent and shows every indication of being an entity; it is less likely to have been expanded than

the Greek version is to have been abbreviated, perhaps in the interests of harmonization.



2

span) being ‘over nine feet’ ( NEB; NIV),16

but since Saul was head and shoulders

taller than any of the people (1 Sam. 10:23), he could have been expected to

respond to Goliath’s challenge.

Single combat as a means of settling the outcome of war between two armies is

not well attested in the ancient Near East. According to Roland de Vaux,Mesopotamian historical texts provide no examples, though the motif is used in

conflicts between the gods.17

Under David, however, individual soldiers were

rewarded for personal acts of bravery with the title gibbôr (2 Sam. 23:8–39).

Whenever detail is provided, it is always the Philistine who issues the challenge to

fight. ‘The natural question therefore is to ask apropos of 1 Sam. 17, whether single

combat was not a Western custom imported by the Philistines.’18

This would seem

likely.

Great interest is shown in Goliath’s armour: the helmet of bronze might have been expected to cover the temples, in the way that the gold helmet, found at Ur,

would have done.19

For some reason this was not the case. The coat of mail ,

weighing five thousand shekels of bronze, that is, about 126 pounds (or 57 kg), was

a scale armour, known from fifteenth century Nuzi. Hundreds of metal scales were

attached with thread to cloth or leather. Greaves to protect his legs completed his

armour, the expense of which makes it likely that [Page 135] only he among the

soldiers would be so equipped. As for his weapons, the javelin (Heb. kîdôn), which

should probably be translated ‘sword’, had a flat, curved blade like a sickle, but

with the outer edge the cutting edge; the spear (Heb. anit ) was more like a javelin,

NEB The New English Bible: Old Testament, 1970.

NIV New International Version, 1978.

16Two MSS of the LXX have the variant ‘four cubits and a span’, a reading supported by 4QSam

a,

hence the ‘six and a half feet tall’ of the NAB. Cf. IDBS art. ‘Goliath’, p. 370.

17 R. de Vaux, The Bible and the Ancient Near East (London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1972), p.

13.

18 Ibid., p. 127.

19On the armour mentioned here, see IBD 1, art. ‘armour’. The word for ‘helmet’, kôba (v. 5) and

spelt qôba (v. 38), first used in this chapter, may be cognate with a Hittite word kupai, ‘head dress’,

introduced into Canaan by the Philistines. Cf. T. C. Mitchell, AOTS, p. 415; J. P. Brown, ‘Peace

Symbolism in Ancient Military Vocabulary’, VT 21 (1971), p. 3.



3

with an iron point and a shaft like a weaver’s beam, that is, equipped for use like a

sling.20

His shield (Heb. innâ), carried by an armour-bearer, was a large

rectangular one, affording maximum protection.

8–11. Confident in the superiority of his equipment, as well as in his greatnatural strength, the giant defies Israel to find his match in single combat. So certain

is he of winning the fight that he commits his fellow countrymen to slavery if he

fails, though when the unexpected happened, and Israel triumphed, the Philistinesdid not serve Israel.

12–18. Mention of David’s name requires an explanation of his circumstances at

the time. His Ephrathite father (cf. 1 Chr. 4:4; Ephrathah was mother of Hur, who

was ‘father’, maybe the civic leader, of Bethlehem), was already too old for military

service, but his three eldest sons were in Saul’s army at the front line, and needing

supplies of food. David, the youngest, had the responsibility of fulfilling this errandin addition to looking after his sheep.

While Saul was fully occupied with military manoeuvres he would not need his

minstrel, so David was back home for a while. The need to keep the army fed took

David to the front and introduced him to the Philistine challenger.

19–23. The details—David’s early start, his arrival just as the fighting men

moved to confront their opposing army, and his disposal of his load at the camp—

all lend vividness to the developing climax.

24–27. The close-up view of Goliath caused panic among Israel’s troops, to theastonishment of David, who, as he was approaching, caught only half the story.

David is indignant that anyone, no matter [Page 136] how powerful, should

presume to insult the people of Israel, and therefore, by implication, Israel’s God.

The uncircumcised Philistine, who worships man-made gods, knows nothing of the

living God, in whom David declares his trust. In answer to his question, David

learns of the threefold prize which will go to the one who will kill Goliath,

including, along with riches and a royal bride, free status for his family in Israel.

This last privilege, exempting the victor’s family from service to the king at court,was tantamount to bestowing equality with the king.21

20 Such a javelin in use is portrayed on a ceramic plate from Greece (B. M. e380) dated fifth century

BC. It shows a cord wound round the shaft to give extra distance and spin, see Y. Yadin, The Art of

Warfare in Biblical Lands (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1963), p. 355.

21 A. F. Rainey, in L. R. Fisher (ed.), Ras Shamra Parallels 2 (1975), p. 104. ‘Free’ (Heb. opšî ) in 1

Sam. usually means ‘freedom from slavery’, but Ugarit provides a parallel for its use here: ‘and the



4

28–30. Eliab’s resentment against the ‘boy from back home’ who shows up his

elders is understandable. Eliab is angry with his youngest brother because he

presumes to enter their military world, and implies that he may supersede them.

31–40. The fact that there may be a volunteer to face the challenger is reported to

Saul, and David reassures the king that he is capable of killing Goliath, despite hiscomparative youth and inexperience of warfare. The Philistine has sealed his own

fate by pitting himself against the armies of the living God , who has already given

David deliverance from a lion and a bear;22

and because he is living he is always at

hand to save. Therefore David can assert, The Lord … will deliver me from the hand

of this Philistine.

[Page 137] We now learn that King Saul had armour, for he urged David to use

it, but David preferred to fight in the way he knew, free from encumbrance and

using only his sling and selected stones from the brook Elah.41–47. There could hardly have been a greater contrast than that between the

heavily armed Goliath, with all his protective gear, and David, who looked entirely

vulnerable and so easy to defeat that Goliath took the selection of the youth as an

insult. David is not intimidated by the Philistine who cursed David by his gods, and

threatened to make him food for the wildlife of the area. David claims to be on the

side of the Lord of hosts (‘Lord Almighty’, NIV), and proof that his claim is

honoured will be victory over both Goliath and the Philistine army. When David is

victorious the result will be that all the earth may know that there is a God in Israel … and that the Lord saves not with sword and spear. This was no ordinary battle,

but one in which God’s honour was at stake, and in this circumstance David’s

exposure to danger permitted God’s honour to be more clearly acknowledged than

if David had more obviously been a match for the Philistine. At no point did David

take any credit for the successful outcome, which he confidently expected. By using

his sling, David could operate beyond the range of Goliath’s weapons.

king has exempted him [a man who has accomplished a brave deed] from service to the palace’ (RS16.269:14–16).

22G. S. Cansdale, Animals of Bible Lands (Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1970), pp. 105–111, 116–119,

confirms that both lions and bears were widespread in Palestine and adjacent countries throughout

Old Testament times, and bears survived in the Hermon range into this century. Both animals, but

especially in practice the bear, could knock out a victim with a paw, hence mention of the ‘paw’ in v.

37: ‘in general a lion is more predictable and therefore safer; a bear hides its intentions. This is also

suggested in 1 Sam. 17:37, “the lion I the bear I this Philistine”, where the three are listed in order

of increasing danger’ (pp. 118–119).



5

48–49. The Philistine had scarcely had time to move towards David when he was

felled by David’s one stone, slung with deadly accuracy so that it penetrated the one

vulnerable spot in Goliath’s elaborate armour. The combat was over in a moment.

50–54. Though the battle had been won without a sword blow being struck,

David did not scorn to take possession of Goliath’s sword in order to finish hiswork. The stone had stunned the giant, and now the sword must kill him. The

Philistines retreated with all speed, and the Israelite army pursued them, driving

them back to their own towns, and afterwards plundering their camp, so enjoying

the spoils.

It is surprising to read that David took the head of the Philistine and brought it to

Jerusalem, in view of the fact that this city was still in Jebusite hands, until David

captured it (2 Sam. 5:6–10), but little is on record to give information about the

status of the city just before that event. The city had been taken by Judah anddestroyed (Judg. 1:8), but it soon recovered (Judg. 1:21; cf. Josh. 15:63), though

[Page 138] no king is subsequently mentioned in the city. Friendly relations

between Israel and Jerusalem obtained during the judges period (Judg. 19:10–12),

or at least a state of neutrality; the city was surrounded by Israelite settlements on

all sides except the west, which was semi-desert, and, in company with the

remainder of the Canaanite population, was indebted to Israel for protection against

the invaders. Was David already becoming the strategist, giving this important city

reason to recognize Israel’s dominance? He put his armour in his tent , keeping it as a trophy of battle, though when it is

next mentioned it is in the tabernacle, under priestly care at Nob (1 Sam. 21:9).23

55–58. Having promised his daughter to the champion of Israel, Saul is

personally concerned to know the family of a likely son-in-law. The reader,

privileged to have a specially selected amount of information, wonders why neither

Saul nor Abner remembers who the champion is. After the event, the family would

not easily be forgotten.

18:1–5. David was immediately given status by his relationship with the royal

family. Jonathan, the crown prince, recognized in David a kindred spirit, and struck up a deep friendship with him, while Saul decided that he needed David’s presence

beside him, and so gave him a home in the palace.

23‘The passing of arms from the lesser to the greater so carefully described by the narrator, seems to

have had political implications in the Ancient Near East’, J. A. Thompson, ‘The Significance of the

verb love in the David-Jonathan Narratives in 1 Samuel’, VT 24 (1974), p. 335. A footnote refers to2 ANET , pp. 276, 281. Cf. 2 Kgs 11:10; 2 Sam. 8:7, 11–12. David received in turn the armour of Saul,

Goliath and Jonathan.



6

Jonathan made a covenant with David , apparently on the spur of the moment, in

the glow of David’s victory; but it was a lasting commitment that both men were to

honour, and which they never regretted. Jonathan’s action in stripping off his royal

insignia, and his royal armour and weapons, only to give them all to David, was

more than spontaneous generosity, to meet the need of his new-found friend. It wasa recognition of David’s worth, for which Jonathan was willing to give his all, even

his right to the throne, for [Page 139] ‘he loved him as himself (v. 3, NIV). In our

political world, where power plays such an important role, what would be thought

of a prince who voluntarily renounced his throne in favour of a friend whose

character and godly faith he admired? It is an unusual theme, unique, maybe. What

did Jonathan’s contemporaries think, and in particular his father?

Evidently David won hearts everywhere he went, and when Saul made him his

general, sending him instead of Jonathan to fight his battles, the appointment metwith universal approval. That was one side of the picture.

1

1Joyce G. Baldwin, 1 and 2 Samuel: An Introduction and Commentary , “Tyndale Old Testament

Commentaries”, vol. 8, InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, Illinois, 1988, pp. 132-139.

1 samuel 17 - goliat (totc)

Documents