iii.

Saul needs a warrior to fight Goliath (17:118:5) This gripping story of Davids youthful faith and courage is one of the worlds classic narratives, and one of the best-known of the Bible. It provides an outstanding example of the Lords power to give [Page 133] victory against dramatically 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 Davids 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 fathers house, and had matured into a bearded adult who looked 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 Goliaths sword. 13. 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. 47. A champion (Heb. -habb naym) 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
15

The Vaticanus MS of the LXX omits large portions of the chapter (1 Sam. 17:1231; 17:5518:5), 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.

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 Goliaths 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 gibbr (2 Sam. 23:839). 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 Goliaths 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. kdn), 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 NIV New
16

New English Bible: Old Testament, 1970. International Version, 1978.

Two MSS of the LXX have the variant four cubits and a span, a reading supported by 4QSama, 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. Ibid., p. 127. On the armour mentioned here, see IBD 1, art. armour. The word for helmet, kba (v. 5) and

18 19

spelt qba (v. 38), first used in this chapter, may be cognate with a Hittite word kupa i, 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.

with an iron point and a shaft like a weavers beam, that is, equipped for use like a sling.20 His shield (Heb. inn), carried by an armour-bearer, was a large rectangular one, affording maximum protection. 811. Confident in the superiority of his equipment, as well as in his great natural 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 Philistines did not serve Israel. 1218. Mention of Davids 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 Sauls army at the front line, and needing supplies of food. David, the youngest, had the responsibility of fulfilling this errand in 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. 1923. The detailsDavids 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. 2427. The close-up view of Goliath caused panic among Israels troops, to the astonishment 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, Israels 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 victors 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. op) in 1

Sam. usually means freedom from slavery, but Ugarit provides a parallel for its use here: and the 3

2830. Eliabs 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. 3140. 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 his comparative 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. 4147. 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 Gods honour was at stake, and in this circumstance Davids exposure to danger permitted Gods 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 Goliaths weapons.
king has exempted him [a man who has accomplished a brave deed] from service to the palace (RS 16.269:1416).
22

G. S. Cansdale, Animals of Bible Lands (Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1970), pp. 105111, 116119, 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. 118119).

4849. The Philistine had scarcely had time to move towards David when he was felled by Davids one stone, slung with deadly accuracy so that it penetrated the one vulnerable spot in Goliaths elaborate armour. The combat was over in a moment. 5054. Though the battle had been won without a sword blow being struck, David did not scorn to take possession of Goliaths sword in order to finish his work. 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. 5:610), 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 and destroyed (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. 19:1012), 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 Israels 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 5558. 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. 18:15. 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 Davids presence beside him, and so gave him a home in the palace.
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 to 2 ANET, pp. 276, 281. Cf. 2 Kgs 11:10; 2 Sam. 8:7, 1112. David received in turn the armour of Saul, Goliath and Jonathan.
23

Jonathan made a covenant with David, apparently on the spur of the moment, in the glow of Davids victory; but it was a lasting commitment that both men were to honour, and which they never regretted. Jonathans 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 was a recognition of Davids 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 Jonathans 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 met with universal approval. That was one side of the picture.1

Joyce 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.