Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - 1 Samuel 17:1 - 17:58
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Saul’s New War with the Philistines and David’s Exploit with its Diverse Consequences for Him and for his Relation to Saul
1Sa_17:1 to 1Sa_19:7
I. The two Camps and Goliath’s arrogant Challenge
1Sa_17:1-11
32And David said to Saul, Let no man’s heart fail because of him; thy servant 33will go and fight with this Philistine. And Saul said to David, Thou art not able to go against this Philistine to fight with him, for thou art but a youth, and he a 34man of war from his youth. And David said unto Saul, Thy servant kept his father’s sheep, and there came a [the] lion and a [the] bear, and took a lamb 35out of the flock; And I went after him and smote him and delivered it out of his mouth; and when he arose against me, I caught him by his beard, and smote him 36and slew him. Thy servant slew both the lion and the bear; and this uncircumcised Philistine shall be as one of them, seeing he hath defied the armies [ranks] 37of the living God. David said moreover [And David said], The Lord [Jehovah] that delivered me out of the paw [hand] of the lion and out of the paw [hand] of the bear, he will deliver me out of the hand of the Philistine. And Saul said unto 38David, Go, and the Lord [Jehovah] be with thee. And Saul armed David with his armor [clothed David with his military dress], and he [om. he] put an helmet of brass [copper] upon his head, also he [and] armed [clothed] him with a coat of 39mail [corselet of scales]. And David girded his sword upon his armor [dress] and he [om. he] assayed to go, for he had not proved it. And David said unto Saul, 40I cannot go with [in] these, for I have not proved them. And David put them off him. And he took his staff in his hand, and chose him five smooth stones out of the brook, and put them in [into] a [the] shepherd’s bag which he had, even [namely] in [into] a [the] scrip;28 and his sling was in his hand, and he drew near to the Philistine.
41And the Philistine came on and drew near [the Philistine drew nearer and 42nearer] unto David, and the man that bare the shield went before him. And when [om. when] the Philistine looked about [om. about] and saw David, [ins. and] he disdained him, for he was but [om. but] a youth and ruddy and of a fair countenance. 43And the Philistine said unto David, Am I a dog, that thou comest to 44me with staves? And the Philistine cursed David by his gods. And the Philistine said to David, Come to me, and I will give thy flesh unto [to] the fowls of 45the air and to the beasts of the field. Then said David [And David said] to the Philistine, Thou comest to me with a [om. a] sword and with a [om. a] spear and with a [om. a] shield [javelin], but I come to thee in the name of the Lord [Jehovah] of hosts, the God of the armies [ranks] of Israel, whom thou hast defied. 46This day will the Lord [Jehovah] deliver thee into my hand, and I will smite thee and take thine head from thee, and I will give the carcasses of the host [army] of the Philistines this day unto [to] the fowls of the air and to the wild beasts of the earth, that [and] all the earth may [shall] know that there is a God in Israel 47[Israel hath a God]. And all this assembly shall know that the Lord [Jehovah] saveth not with sword and spear; for the battle is the Lord’s [Jehovah’s], and he 48will give you into our hands. And it came to pass, when the Philistine arose and came [went] and drew nigh to meet David, that David hasted and ran toward the 49army [line] to meet the Philistine. And David put his hand in [into] his bag, and took thence a stone, and slang it, and smote the Philistine in his forehead, and 50the stone sank into his forehead, and he fell upon his face to the earth. So [And] David prevailed over the Philistine with a [om. a] sling and with a [om. a] stone, and smote the Philistine and slew him, but [and] there was no sword in the hand 51of David. Therefore [And] David ran and stood upon the Philistine, and took his sword, and drew it out of the sheath thereof, and slew him and cut off his head therewith. And when [om. when] the Philistines saw their champion was dead, 52[ins. and] they fled. And the men of Israel and of Judah arose and shouted, and pursued the Philistines until thou come to the valley [ravine] and to the gate of Ekron. And the wounded of the Philistines fell down by the way to Shaaraim, 53even [and] to [as far as] Gath and to [as far as] Ekron. And the children of Israel returned from chasing after the Philistines, and they spoiled their tents 54[camps]. And David took the head of the Philistine, and brought it to Jerusalem, but [and] he put his armour [trappings] in [into] his tent.
1Sa_17:2. The Israelitish army assembled and encamped in the Terebinth-valley. As the Israelites must have moved from the north-east, the Terebinth-valley must be placed north-east of the Philistine position, and regarded as a plain in Wady Sur or Massur.
1Sa_17:3. The position of the opposing armies towards the mountain, on the declivity of the mountain (this is not in conflict with the Israelitish position in the Terebinth-vale, if we suppose lowlands descending from the heights), the two separated by the still deeper bed of a brook, is vividly described.
1Sa_17:4. Goliath comes forward—description of his person. He is called “the man of the midst,” middleman [champion] because he advances between the two armies (1Sa_17:8-9) to decide the matter by single combat. (Maurer: “ áֵּðַéִí , interval between two things, here between two armies ( ôὰ ìåôáß÷ìéá , Eur. Phœn. 5:1285, on which the Schol. says: “the space between armies where single combats took place), whence àַéùׁ çַáֵּðַéִí , one who decides a contest by single combat between two army-lines.” Sept. Al., ’ Áìåóóáῖïò (1Sa_17:23), error for ὁ ìåóáῖïò ). See examples of similar single combats among the Oriental nations in Stähelin’s “Leben Davids,” Bas. 1866, p. 4. Neither of the armies dares to attack. Saul and Israel feared the Philistines, instead of bravely attacking the hereditary enemy of the Theocracy in reliance on the help of the Lord. The explanation is found in Saul’s false attitude towards the Lord. “The king reckons only with human factors, believing that he has forfeited all claim to help from above. What wonder that his position seems to him in general doubtful, and he thinks it prudent—unbelief makes us cowards—to act merely on the defensive.” (F. W. Krummacher.) The plu. “out of the camps of the Philistines” does not justify us in accepting the arbitrary rendering of the Sept., “out of the ranks;” it refers to the various camp-divisions out of which Goliath came (comp. Ew. § 178 d).—Gath, one of the five Philistine capital-cities, has now disappeared without trace. When Joshua destroyed the giant race of the Enakim (Jos_11:21 sq.) in this region, there remained some of them only in Gaza, Gath, and Ashdod (1Sa_17:22). Goliath’s height is given exactly: six cubits and a span. The change in the Sept. of the six to four is due to the desire to give plausibility to what seemed incredible. According to Thenius (die althebr. Längen und Hohlmasse in den Theol. Stud. und Krit., 1846, p. 117 sq.) Goliath’s height was 9 feet 1 inch (Parisian). See in Then, and Keil (Comms. on this verse) examples of like tallness in ancient and modem times. The skeletons of Pusio and Secundilla, mentioned by Pliny (N. H. 7, 16) were a Paris inch longer [10 ft. 3 in. Roman measure.] [Keil mentions a giant who came to Berlin in the year 1857, who was as tall as Goliath; and “Chang, the Chinese giant, lately in England, was 7 feet 8 inches high” (Bib. Com). On the giants of the Bible see the dictionaries of Winer (Riesen), Herzog (id.), Smith, and Fairbairn.—Tr.].
1Sa_17:5-7. Goliath’s arms are in keeping with his bodily size: 1) copper-helmet; 2) scale-corselet; ( ÷ַùְׂ÷ֶùֶׂú , according to Num_11:9 sq.; Deu_14:9 sq.; Eze_29:4 = “scale”), a harness or corselet made of overlapping metallic plates ( öïëéäùôüí , Aq. “clad with scales”), not of chain-rings. Such scale-corselets were common in ancient oriental wars. See Layard, “Nineveh and its Remains,” II. 4, and Bochart, Phal. III. 13. [Also Kitto, “Saul and David,” p. 211 sq., and Philippson in loco.] The weight of the corselet, or coat-of-mail, was 5000 shekels; the shekel was not a full German loth [half-ounce]; Then.: “about 139 Dresden pounds.” The corselet probably descended far down the body, as we see in the pictures of Assyrian warriors in Layard’s “Nineveh.” 3) copper-greaves on the legs. (Read plu. “greaves,” as in all ancient VSS.) These greaves did not cover the thighs (Bunsen), which in oriental fashion were protected by the corselet. 4) a copper-lance between his shoulders. The Heb. “lance” ( ëּéãåֹï ), is to be retained in spite of the reading “shield” ( îָâֵï ) in Sept., Vulg., Syr., Arab. The text is confirmed by 1Sa_17:45, “where the shield would be out of place, with two offensive arms” (Then.). As the ancients carried even their swords on their shoulders (Il. 2, 45; Bochart, Hieroz. 1,2, 8), there is nothing strange in his carrying the javelin “between the shoulders.” 5) a spear, whose shaft (read òֵõ for çֵõ , comp. 2Sa_21:19; 1Ch_20:5) was like a weaver’s beam, and whose head weighed 600 shekels of iron, “somewhat over 16½ Dresden pounds, quite in keeping with the other statements” (Then.). 1Sa_17:8-11. Goliath’s contemptuous and fear-inspiring challenge. 1Sa_17:8. He stood and cried to the ranks of Israel: Why are ye in battle array? behold, I represent the whole Philistine people, and ye are servants of Saul. Send one of you to fight with me, and “let him come down to me;” Goliath was standing, namely, in the valley, beneath the Israelites who were encamped on the hill-side.
1Sa_17:9. The proposed agreement to decide the question of subjection by the single combat, which, in Goliath’s opinion, would undoubtedly result in favor of the Philistines. Clericus here cites the combat between the Horatii and the Curiatii, and the agreement (Liv. I. 23) between the Romans and Albans “that the nation, whose citizens conquered in the combat, should rule the other in peace.”
1Sa_17:10. Goliath’s scorn and contempt of Israel lay not merely in the reproach that they were Saul’s slaves and in the tone of his words, but also in the challenge itself, because it was not answered.
1Sa_17:11. Fear and trembling take possession of Israel with Saul at the head. F. W. Krummacher: “Israel is afraid, because its king is. They dare not in childlike spirit appropriate the promises of Jehovah. The wings that should bear them up in trustful upsoaring to the Lord of Hosts are crippled.”
1Sa_17:12-31. David in the camp—his preparation for the combat with Goliath.
1Sa_17:12. The full account of the person and family of David tells what we already know from chap. 16., and yet reads as if nothing had been said of his origin. This suggests that the Redactor of the Book here appends and works in a narrative concerning David, which began with the family history, and then related the combat with Goliath and its occasion. This view is supported by the “that” or “this” ( äַæֶּä ), which is evidently added in order to connect the words with 16:1. Vulg. properly: “the above-mentioned Ephrathite.” The last words of 1Sa_17:12 relating to Jesse, the “Ephrathite” (that is, of Ephrath, the old name of Bethlehem, Gen_48:7, see Rth_1:1-2), are difficult. The rendering, with retention of the text, “was come among the weak” (D. Kimchi, S. Schmid, Keil) [Eng. A. V. “went among men”] is opposed to the ordinary meaning of the Heb. ( àֲðַùִéí ) = “people, men.” Bunsen’s explanation: “belonged to the men of standing” is, by his own judgment, possible only by an arbitrary insertion, and is otherwise meaningless. [Comp. the Targum: belonged to the áçéø , the vigorous young men.—Tr.] Hitzig (see in Thenius) renders: “he was an old man among men,” which arbitrarily omits áָּà , “went.” It seems best, with Grotius, Thenius, after Sept., Vulg., Syr., Arab., to substitute “in years” ( áַּùָּðִéí ) instead of the text, and render “he was advanced in years.” This phrase indeed is not found elsewhere, but we have the similar phrase “advanced in days” (Gen_24:1; Jos_13:1) = aged. This statement of Jesse’s age gives the reason why he does not himself go into the field, but only his three oldest sons. In the pluperfect “went … had gone (Ew. § 346 c, A. 3—“the verb standing in sequence is then explained as plup. by means of its own perf.”) we have a trace of the effort of the Redactor to work the new narrative, to which the simple “went” belonged, into the whole history. The pluperfect was necessary here, because the account of David’s family carries us into a time anterior to the already related appearance of Goliath. While we have here eight sons of Jesse (and so 1Sa_16:10 sq.), only seven are named in 1Ch_2:13-15, David being there the seventh. Clericus rightly supposes that there the name of one of David’s brothers is by error omitted. The name of the third, here and 1Sa_16:6-9 written Shammah, is Shimeah in 1Ch_2:13 [Eng. A. V.: Shimmi perhaps after Vulg.—Tr.] and 20:7, Shimei in 2Sa_21:21 [so Kethib, but Qeri is Shimeah; Erdmann writes ùִׁîְòָé , putting the vowels of the Qeri under the Kethib, comp. 1Ki_1:8.—Tr.] and Shimeah in 2Sa_13:3; 2Sa_13:32.
1Sa_17:14. The words: and the three eldest followed Saul are a repetition of the statement in 1Sa_17:13, and show the pains the Redactor took to introduce his new material clearly and connectedly.
1Sa_17:15. Here the narrator takes up the “and David” of 1Sa_17:12, after having explained that the three oldest brothers had followed Saul to the war. David was “going and returning” from Saul to feed his father’s sheep in Bethlehem; that is, he did not remain constantly at the court of Saul, but went back and forth, to court, and then home to attend to his pastoral duties. This he could do, since Saul was not always in the gloomy state which required David’s harp. Inasmuch as it appears from what follows that this going and returning from Saul was not from the theatre of war (for then he would already have given account of his brothers, and also his appearance there surprises them), it must have fallen in the time before Saul went to the war. According to this David was not constantly at the court of Saul, and from time to time exchanged the harp for the shepherd’s staff. Although, according to 16:21, he is Saul’s armor-bearer, he is yet not with him in the field; he is even (1Sa_17:33) a boy ignorant of war, and (1Sa_17:28) an unauthorized spectator of the battle. This has been regarded as in conflict with 1 Samuel 16., and therefore the section 1Sa_17:12-31 has been declared to be a later interpolation (Mich., Eichh., Dath., Berth., after the Vat. Sept., which omits it), or by another author than that of 1 Samuel 16, and in conflict with the latter (De Wette, Then., Ew., Bleek, Winer, Stähelin). But it is unnecessary to suppose a contradiction here. If Joab, the General, had ten armor-bearers (2Sa_18:15; comp. 2Sa_23:37), King Saul would certainly have more than one, as to which note that in 16:21 it is not said that David became the armor-bearer of Saul [properly: “he became an armor-bearer to him.”—Tr.]. As totally unpracticed in war (so 1 Samuel 16. supposes him to be), David, notwithstanding his enrolment among the court-esquires (armor-bearers), could not be needed by Saul in war, and he needed not to he taken along for his music, because in the midst of military affairs Saul’s mind was concentrated on one point, held by one thought. Finally, the words of 16:21, 22, do not exclude the supposition that David went to and fro to his father; they rather open a way for it, since his service with Saul had respect to a definite end, which no longer existed when Saul’s condition of mind was for a long time better. And so this statement in 1Sa_17:15 may be very well harmonized with that of 16:21–23; they do not exclude each other. The sentence [1Sa_17:15] is to be taken, in connection with the second half of 1Sa_17:14, in a pluperfect sense, and as an addition of the Redactor’s, the aim of which is to furnish the connection between 16:21, 22, and the following narrative of David’s visit from Jesse to the army, which is from another source than 1 Samuel 16.—[Paraphrase of 1Sa_17:12-17 : “Let us leave the army for the present in order to introduce another personage. David was the son of a Bethlehemite named Jesse (already mentioned in 1 Samuel 16.), who, an old man, did not himself go to the war, but had sent his three oldest sons. The youngest, David, had been at Saul’s Court, but had been going to and fro to his father’s house. It was while the Philistine champion above-mentioned was daily offering his challenge (for he repeated it forty days) that Jesse determined to send David to his brethren.”—Tr.].
1Sa_17:16 connects itself in content with 1Sa_17:8, and prepares the way for the progress of the narrative, in order to show how David’s conduct on the field of battle over against the bearing of the Philistine was motived by the insolence of the latter. Thenius: “If 1Sa_17:12-31 were interpolated, this explanatory insertion could not be accounted for at all.”
1Sa_17:17. “Parched peas” ( ÷ָìִéà , ÷ָìִé , Lev_23:14; 2Sa_17:28) [or “parched grain.”—Tr.].—According to Thenius the Ephah = 3 Dresden pecks. “And carry them quickly to thy brethren,” that is, the parched grain and the bread.—[Bib. Comm.: “All the circumstances necessary for the understanding of the narrative having been explained, it now proceeds more smoothly.”—Tr.]
1Sa_17:18. “Cheeses,” that is, pieces of cheese or curds (literally, milk, so the ancient VSS.). The word cannot mean “milk-portion,” that is, one milking of a cow (Mich., Schulz), since, as Then, properly remarks, David could not have carried ten such portions with the rest of his load. This gift David is to carry to the captain over a thousand, the chiliarch, under whose command his brothers were. A sketch from military folk-life, such as we often even now see. “And inquire of their welfare” ( ìְùָׁìåí ), comp. 2Sa_11:7; Gen_37:14; 2Ki_10:3.—And take their token, that is, take a token from them, “that we may see and know that they are well, and that thou hast been with them” (Berl. Bib.). The old expositors have here made unnecessary difficulty. The pledge was a token, which, though David had seen them, would be of special value to the father’s heart as an immediate sign from their own hands of their being alive and well (in place of a letter).
1Sa_17:19 is not an explanatory remark of the Narrator or Redactor, but a part of Jesse’s speech to David, who is thus instructed where to find his brothers; we must therefore render in present time: “And Saul … are in the terebinth-vale.”—[This construction is favored by the phrase: “and they,” which seems more appropriate in Jesse’s mouth. Yet the rendering of Eng. A. V. is allowable.—Tr.]
1Sa_17:20 relates the arrival of David on the field of battle, and thus introduces us into military life, îַòְâָּì means properly “wagon-track;” it is doubtful how it is to be rendered here and in 26:5, 7. The Complut. Sept. translates by óôñïããýëùóéò , “rounding,” in accordance with the meaning of òָâַì , “to be round,” and the usual form of ancient camps (Winer, R.-W. I. 681). This points not to a wagon-rampart, but to the round circumvallation. Vulg. wrongly: “ad locum Magala.—[The Syr. has “camp,” the Chald. “fortification,” the Arab. “army” or “camp.” Erdmann renders “camp-wall,” Philippson “wagon-rampart,” Bib.-Com. “wagons,” i.e. “wagon-rampart,” Calvin, “the place of wagons.” This last seems to be the literal meaning of the word (so margin of Eng. A. V.), and best suits the circumstances of 1Sa_26:5; 1Sa_26:7; the wagons were made into a fortification or rampart. The renderings of Syr. and Arab, are general, of the nature of paraphrases.—Tr.] “The host” is not connected with the preceding verb (“and came to the host”), but begins an independent sentence, in which the original construction “and the host which” is interrupted by the phrase “and they shouted,” the subject of which is supplied from “host.”—And they shouted in the battle, that is, raised the war-cry. We need not change the Heb. prep. “in” to “to;” it is a pregnant construction: they shouted as men do in battle [or better “they shouted (and advanced) into the battle.”—Tr.]
1Sa_17:21 gives the position of the opposing armies.
1Sa_17:22. “His baggage,” the present that he had to deliver [and anything else that he might have with him.—Tr.]—“He came and asked after his brothers, in order to learn of their well-being.” Clericus: “for he knew that the tribe of Judah was in the front, Num_2:3; Num_10:14.”
1Sa_17:23. Goliath’s advance, already described in 1Sa_17:4, and here repeated, first directs David’s attention to him, and incites him to the resolution to fight the champion. òåֹìֶä [Eng. A. V. “came up”] is not “came on” (De Wette), but “ascended,” that is, he came over the valley so near to the Israelites, that he advanced some distance up the height on which they were encamped, in order to throw more contempt into his challenge.—(The Kethib, îîòøåú , can be rendered neither caterva hominum (Gesen.), nor loca plana ( îַòֲøåֹú ), nor speluncæ ( îְòָøåֹú ); these meanings give no good sense. It is better to take the Qeri with Sept. and Vulg. [Chald.] “ranks,” or, still better with Then. [Syr.] the Sing. “the line.”)—Surprising is the description of Goliath: “Goliiath the Philistine his name,” instead of “Goliath his name, the Philistine of Gath,” as the Vulg. [so Eng. A. V.] translates. We need not, however, transpose the Heb. text (Then.), since in the popular language “Goliath the Philistine” may have become a proper name. We see here too that the author is drawing from a narrative whose description of Goliath (which the author retains, though he had already, 1Sa_17:4, described him) contained this popular designation of the grant.
1Sa_17:24. Even the sight of Goliath fills the Israelites with fear and trembling.
1Sa_17:2-5.—The ëִּé [Eng. A. V. “surely”] after “have ye seen?” gives the ground of the exhortation therein contained to get ready with anger at Goliath’s insolent bearing towards Israel; it corresponds to Germ. ja, Eng. surely. Comp. Mic_6:3; Job_31:18; Ges. § 155, 1, e (d).—And the man who shall kill him, him will the king enrich, etc. This indicates that Saul had already issued a proclamation, urging the combat with the giant. As generals and princes were accustomed to encourage to such deeds of arms by offering large prizes (Jos_15:16; Jdg_1:12; 2Sa_18:11; 1Ch_11:6), so, according to the talk which passed among the people, Saul had promised the highest possible reward to the conqueror of Goliath: great riches, his daughter to wife, and freedom from taxation. This last is the meaning of çָôְùִׁé , not, as Ewald holds, elevation to the rank of free lord, or baron, as the middle rank between king and subjects.—[The word is synonymous with our “free;” see its use in Exo_21:2; Deu_15:12; Job_3:19; Job_39:5; Psa_88:5 (6), of slaves set free, of a dead man free from the cares of life, of the wild ass at liberty. Here probably of freedom from taxes.—Tr.].—As in 1Sa_17:27 the people give the same answer to David’s question (1Sa_17:26), which supposes this offering of rewards to be a usual thing, we must conclude that Saul actually made these promises (though nothing is afterwards said of their fulfilment), especially as the same thing is repeated in 1Sa_17:27. From Saul’s tendency to rash and exaggerated action, and from his changeableness, we can easily understand both the promise and his unwillingness to perform it.
1Sa_17:26. The ground and justification of David’s question concerning the reward of slaying the Philistine is furnished by the high significance of the deed as expressed in the words: “and take away the reproach from Israel;” this significance lends the deed such value that Saul, in David’s opinion, must assign it a high prize.—For who is this Philistine, etc.—These words do not, in the first instance express David’s desire to fight the Philistine (Keil), but they contain the ground of the preceding thought, that the insult offered Israel by the Philistine must be wiped out. This ground lies in the contrast (already indicated in the preceding words “the Philistine … Israel”) between the stand-point of the Philistine as an uncircumcised who has no community with the living God, and stands outside of God’s covenant with Israel, and the stand-point of this covenant-people, which is expressed in the words: “ranks of the living God.” How should this insult of the unclean Philistine cleave to the people of Israel, who are consecrated to the living God, whose battle-line, therefore, is also devoted to him? The living God is emphasized over against the dead idols of the Philistines. Since the Philistine has reviled the people of God, the covenant-people of the Lord, he has directed his scorn and derision against the living God Himself; and he who does the deed that takes away this reproach from Israel, will have God on his side, and do the deed with God’s help. In these words David is seized with holy anger, whose fire flames up from his theocratic sense of honor, to which violence is done by the Philistine’s challenge. His words already indicate his calling, which he has received from the Lord, to rouse the people of Israel, by awakening a new and vigorous theocratic spirit, out of the lethargy into which they had fallen in respect to their hereditary foe under the steadily sinking Saul (a lethargy illustrated in the repeated and unanswered challenge of Goliath), to the height of a true theocratic life.—[Bib. Com.: “The expression ‘the living God’ occurs first Deu_5:26, then Jos_3:10; 2Ki_19:4; twice in the Ps. (42:2; 84:2), four times in the Prophets, and frequently in the New Testament. It is generally in contrast to false gods (1Th_1:9, etc.).”—Besides Isa_37:4; Isa_37:17; Jer_10:10; Jer_23:36; Hos_1:10 (2:1); comp. similar expressions in Psa_18:46; Jer_44:26, and the asseveration of Jehovah “as I live” and the significance of the divine name “I am that I am.”—Tr.]
1Sa_17:28. Over against David appears his oldest brother Eliab as the representative of a totally different disposition. His words show not merely complete lack of brotherly love for David, but bitterness and hatred towards him. In contrast with David’s holy anger, his unholy anger is kindled at David’s talk with the soldiers. Perhaps envy and ambition lay at the bottom of this. His two questions: 1) Why hast thou come down?—the down refers to the relatively elevated position of Bethlehem—and 2) With whom hast thou left those few sheep in the wilderness? 1) express the thought: “Thou hast nothing to do here, belongest not here,” indicating a haughty, quick-judging nature, and 2) reproach David with neglect of duty as keeper of his father’s flocks. While all David’s thought and feeling is on the great national disgrace and its removal, and his mind is concerned with plans for saving the honor of Israel and Israel’s God, Eliab in his low and blind zeal thinks only of the flock of sheep and the possible loss to them from lack of oversight; the type of a narrow soul, incapable of great thoughts and deeds. But from the reproach of inconsiderate neglect of duty, he passes to a two-fold serious accusation: I know thy arrogance and the naughtiness of thy heart, for to see the battle art thou come down.—His zeal blinded by envy and jealousy, he ascribes David’s visit to the worst motives: 1) pride, in that he wishes to rise above his shepherd-life and play a part in the war, and 2) badness of heart, according to the connection wickedness, brutality, in that he wishes to enjoy himself and please his eyes in the battle. In Eliab’s words we see the disposition which he falsely and with hate-blinded zeal ascribes to his brother.—As he forms in word and bearing the sharpest contrast to David, so David’s conduct towards him (1Sa_17:29) is in sharpest contrast to him. His answer is quiet, passionless, but a decided and explicit disavowal of the wrong angrily charged on him.—What have I now done? that is, nothing that I have done gives ground for the reproaches and accusations which you have addressed to me. Opposed to the “done” ( òָùִׂéúִé ) is the following “word” ( ãָּáָø ).—Was it not a word merely?—This is not: Was it not a command? namely, of my father, to come hither, must I not obey (Luther, Gesen.)? for this would be unintelligible to Eliab from its brevity. David would have expressed himself more definitely, if he had meant his father’s command. The reply refers to the word (1Sa_17:26) which David had spoken, as appears from what follows; and so the ancient VSS. The sense is: Is not this word permitted me? Can I not seek information by such a word?
1Sa_17:30. David turned from Eliab to another with the same question, and received the same answer. The meaning of ãָּáָø (“word”) here and 1Sa_17:31 in reference to 1Sa_17:26 confirms the view of its meaning in 1Sa_17:29.
1Sa_17:31. “In the presence of Saul,” not “to Saul,” “markedly expressive of respectful announcement” (Then.). David’s zeal exhibited to the people for the honor of the Lord and of Israel was the cause of his again appearing before Saul, and the preparation for the deed of heroism by which he was to save the honor of Israel and its God against the scorn of the Philistine.
1Sa_17:32-40. David’s conversation with Saul on his resolution, and his preparation for the combat with Goliath.
1Sa_17:32. Let no man’s heart fail because of him.—To read (Then, after the Sept.) “my lord” ( àãðé ), instead of “man” ( àãí ) destroys the general character of the affirmation, which is here so appropriate; for, according to 1Sa_17:24, the fear of the Philistine was universal in Israel.—“Heart,” here=“courage;” comp. Germ. beherztheit [literally “heartedness;” so Eng. “courage,” from French cœur, “heart.”—Tr.].—The Pron. “him” is better referred to the Philistine; Then. refers it to Saul [let not my lord’s heart fail him”], and Vulg. renders in eo, “in him.” David first expresses the general thought, “no man’s courage must fail on his account,” and then individualizes it in the words “I will exhibit such a manly courage.”—In this exhortation to courageousness David expresses his own stout courage over against the universally feared Philistine, and the want of courage in Israel. As proof of his courage he announces his determination to undertake immediately the combat with this Philistine.
1Sa_17:33. Against this Saul represents that David as a youth cannot venture on a battle with this man, who had been a warrior from his youth. [In 16:18 David is designated by the same term, “man of war,” which here describes Goliath; but this term would naturally have different meanings as used by the young man in 1 Samuel 16. and by Saul here, and moreover the contrast here rather rather refers to the ages of the two antagonists. David might seem to Saul’s retainer a brilliant young “warrior,” and yet as a stripling seem to Saul unable to cope with this experienced “warrior.”—Tr.]
1Sa_17:34 sq. To this remark of Saul David, in order to show his courage and strength, replies by narrating a victorious combat with a lion and a bear, which he had while keeping his father’s flocks. The Art. [omitted in 1Sa_17:34 in Eng. A. V.—Tr.] before “lion” and “bear” is better understood as representing David’s immediate view of the animals in his description [the lion which I now in imagination see before me], than as pointing them out as the well-known animals. ( àֵç before äַãּåֹá is sign of the Acc., Ew. § 277 d. Böttcher: “As àֵç before the Nominative is always either limiting or emphasizing (Jer_45:4; Jer_38:16 Keth.; Eze_44:3 al.), the form ‘and what the bear was’ very naturally expresses the sense ‘and even the bear;’ for the black, ugly bear seemed to the Hebrew still more dreadful than the noble lion, and stands after the latter in a climax (Hos_13:7 sq.; Amo_5:19; Pro_28:15; Sir_47:3).” Comp. 2Sa_17:8, where special strength and courage are ascribed to the bear.— æֶç is clerical error for ùֶׂä .) As we cannot suppose that the two animals united in a robbery, David must be regarded as here combining two combats, one with a lion, the other with a bear. The constant use of the singular suffix (1Sa_17:35), which with two subjects is surprising, is not to be explained (Keil) by supposing that David here combines the two exploits, “killed the one beast and the other;” for not only does the “beard” not suit the bear, but the impression made on us by the narrator is that he is thinking of one animal, not of two. It is better to understand 1Sa_17:35 of the lion, since he is first named in 1Sa_17:34, and the following statement suits him only. Against this cannot be urged the impropriety of speaking of a lion’s beard, for the ancients frequently mention it, Hom. Il., 15,275; 17,109; Mart. 10:9. Thus in the words “there came the lion and the bear,” there is a vivid description of David’s killing the lion, evidently with his shepherd’s staff. See 2Sa_23:20, where it is related of Benaiah, a captain of David’s, that he killed a lion in a pit. On the fact that lions are killed with sticks by the Arabs see Thevenot, Voyage de Levante, II., 13. Comp. Rosenm., Bibl. Thierreich, p. 132. 1Sa_17:36. Here David first says expressly that he slew both beasts. He expresses his confident conviction that he will likewise slay the Philistine. “The Philistines, this uncircumcised, shall be as one of them.” But at the same time he grounds (“seeing that”) this conviction and certainty of victory on Goliath’s wickedness, his defiance of the ranks of the living God, wherein we again see David’s strong and clear consciousness of the theocratic significance of this battle between the Philistines and the Israelites, whose covenant-God is contemned in His people and their army, and who therefore cannot abandon His people’s cause, which is His own.
1Sa_17:37. David again declares the ground of his confidence that he will conquer Goliath, namely, his trust in the mighty help of the Lord, which he founds on his experience of that help in the combat with the lion and the bear. The experience of the Lord’s help is the foundation of hope for new help.—Saul accordingly permits him to go to the fight, and assures him that the Lord will be with him.
1Sa_17:38 sq. “His garments” ( îַãָּéå ) can from this connection mean only garments which pertained to warlike equipment (18:4), over which the sword was girded.
1Sa_17:39. That David puts on Saul’s armor shows that he was of about the same stature with him. [Not necessarily, since the armor may have been capable of change of size by tightening.—Tr.] David cannot go, he says, in these garments, not because they are too large, but because he is not accustomed to them. He sees that they would only hinder him in the fight, and lays them off.
1Sa_17:40. He exchanges the armor for his shepherd’s implements, staff and sling. The latter was as necessary to the shepherds as the former, in order to keep off the wild beasts. David must therefore have been well-practiced in its use.—See an example of skill with the sling among the Benjaminites, Jdg_20:16. So he advanced against the Philistine.
1Sa_17:41-54. David’s victory over Goliath.
1Sa_17:41. The mutual approach of David and Goliath is here again described in a very lively manner: Goliath drew nearer and nearer to David, in consequence of David’s approach to him (1Sa_17:42). V. 42. As he comes nearer Goliath looks more closely at David and despises him, seeing in him not a warrior, but a pretty youth. This account tallies exactly with 16:12.
1Sa_17:43 sq. The Sept. reads: “Am I as a dog, that thou comest against me with staff and stones? and David said, Nay, but worse than a dog.” The Plu. “staves” seemed to them strange, and was therefore changed into the Sing., and this occasioned the additional words. It stands, as Keil observes, “in scornful exaggeration of what seemed to the Philistine the wholly unsuitable armor of David.” The words: “worse than a dog,” do not suit David’s character; they would be excessive abuse. The Philistine’s word: “am I a dog?” sets forth his feeling of insult at David’s coming against him with a staff, which was ordinarily employed not against men, but against beasts. And the Philistine cursed David by his god. Here is shown the innermost contrast which comes into play in the battle between Israelites and Philistines: the contrast between the living God and His people on the one hand, and the idolatrous, antitheocratic world on the other. Similar are the scornful defiances which warriors of antiquity mutually gave at the beginning of a combat.—On 1Sa_17:44 comp. Eze_29:5.
1Sa_17:45 sq. David’s answer to Goliath’s reproaches contains in an advancing line of thought the most important elements of his character: 1) he expresses most sharply that contrast between their two stand-points in their religious-moral aspect: Thou comest to me relying on thine own strength and thy powerful armor, but I come to thee in the name of Jehovah Sabaoth, the God of the ranks of Israel, whom thou hast defied. The name of the Lord is for David the totality of all the revelations by which the living God has made Himself known and named among His people. Of these elements, which form the conception of the name of God, he here, suitably to the situation, adduces those which characterize Him in respect to His warlike and ruling power as Captain and Conqueror of His people (Psa_24:10). The words, “whom thou hast defied,” form the factual ground of David’s second declaration, 1Sa_17:46 : The Lord will, because I come against thee in His name, give thee into mine hand, &c. David expresses his certainty of victory, but at the same time affirms that it will be God’s deed. Triumphal heroic courage before victory, and humble bowing before God as the bestower of victory are here united in David. The rendering of the Sept.: thy corpse and the corpses (of the army, &c.) is no doubt occasioned by the strangeness of the Sing. [Eng. A. V. has Plu. “carcasses.” See Text. and Gramm.—Tr.]. “Corpse” ( ôֶּâֶø ) is to be taken collectively.—3) By the help which God the Lord will grant His people in this victory, all the world will know that Israel has a God, not: “that God is for Israel.” The sense is: The other nations will learn that God does not suffer Himself to be mocked in His people, but as their covenant-God helpfully and mightily espouses their cause.
1Sa_17:47. 4) Together with the knowledge, which reaches beyond Israel to the heathen nations, that Israel has a protecting and saving God, for Israel themselves (here called “all this assembly”) the blessing of this not doubtful victory will be, that they shall know that the Lord needs not external mighty means, as sword and spear, for His help; for His is the battle, by His almighty will the issue of the battle is determined in His people’s favor, arms of war do not secure His help, but His power alone secures success, even when not those arms but seemingly feeble means are employed. He gives the enemy into the hand of His people.
1Sa_17:48 sq. Goliath’s approach to David at the beginning of the combat is minutely and vividly described; as well as David’s preparation for the battle, and its speedy termination. David’s unbroken courage is made more evident by the remark that he went “toward the line” to meet the Philistine. The stone flung from the sling reached Goliath’s forehead. The addition in the Sept. “through the helm,” is a superfluous interpretation. If his forehead and face were covered by the front of the helm, the stone might indeed penetrate through the latter. But it may also be supposed that Goliath, confident of victory, advanced against the despised shepherd-lad with uncovered forehead. Comp. W. Vischer, Antike Schleudergeschosse [Ancient Slings], Basel, 1866, p. 5, where he speaks of slingers who could hit the part of the enemy’s face at which they aimed.
1Sa_17:50 sq. expressly declares the superiority of David over Goliath with sling and stone, in accordance with David’s words, 1Sa_17:47, that victory is not determined by strength of warlike arms. To this refers also the added statement, “David had no sword in his hand,” which is at the same time the reason for the following statement, namely, the slaying of the giant with his own sword, with which David cut off his head. After the fall of Goliath the terrified Philistines take to flight, without trying a battle. The Israelites raised the battle-cry, and pursued them.
1Sa_17:52. The text reads: “up to a ravine.” This gives no good sense, since the ravine between the two armies cannot be meant, nor can we suppose such an indefinite locality, the word not having the Article. As Gath and Ekron are afterwards named as the limit of the pursuit, it is natural to suppose that here âַּéà [“ravine”] stands by error for âַּú [Gath]. áְּãֶøֶêְ ùַׁòֲøִéí is usually understood of a city, Shaarim: “on the road as far as Shaarim.” Thenius’ objection, that no such city is mentioned elsewhere, is not tenable, for see Jos_15:36. Thenius renders after the Sept. “in the way of the gates,” understanding by this the whole space between the outer and inner gate, since city gates were in the form of a building, enclosing a space, and so had two doors (2Sa_18:24); against which is partly the absence of the Art., partly the double òַã , “up to,” as the sign of direction and progress. According to the usual view the Philistines fled along the road from Shaarim partly towards Gath, partly towards Ekron, and many of them were slain. “This direction of the flight resulted from the nature of the country. The Wady Sumt, where the combat took place, passes northward from Socoh, turns after two or three miles westward by the village Sakarieh ( ùַׁòֲøַéִí , Sept. Jos_15:36, Óáêáñßì ), emptying into the Wady Simchim; about a mile from this is the village of Ajjur, which is held to be ancient Gath (Rob. II. 606–8 (Am. Ed., II., 66, 67); Ritter, XVI., 91), and so the Philistines fled through the valley that Robinson also traversed in his excursion from Jerusalem to Gath. Another portion of the Philistines remained in Wady Sumt and fled northward, where the Wady Sumt takes the name Wady Surar, in which lies the present city Akir.” Stähelin, Das Leben David’s, p. 7 sq.
1Sa_17:53. From this hot pursuit of the Philistines up to their cities the Israelites turned back to spoil the enemy’s camp.
1Sa_17:54. David carried Goliath’s head to Jerusalem. This is no anachronism, since only the fortress of Jebus on mount Zion was then in the hands of the Jebusites, the city Jerusalem being already in possession of the Israelites (Jos_15:63; Jdg_1:21). But why should not this city be selected as the place of deposit of this trophy, since it was the nearest to the field of battle? Goliath’s arms, on the contrary, he put into his dwelling. àֹäֶì [usually = “tent,” as in Eng. A. V.—Tr.] is the ancient word for dwelling, as in 4:10; 13:2; 2Sa_18:17; 2Sa_19:8; 2Sa_20:1, and here the old homestead in Bethlehem is meant. It is no contradiction that we afterwards (21:9) find the sword of Goliath in the sanctuary at Nob; for meantime it might have been carried thither to be permanently kept as sign of the victory granted Israel by the Lord over their old hereditary enemy.
[At the end of the Psalter the Sept. has an additional Psalm referring to this combat, as follows: “This is the autographic (though supernumerary) Psalm of David, composed when he had the single combat with Goliath. I was little among my brethren, and youngest in the house of my father. I kept my father’s sheep, my hands made an organ, my fingers joined together a psaltery, and who will tell it to my lord? He is the Lord, He heareth. He sent His messenger and took me from the sheep of my father, and anointed me with the oil of His anointing. My brethren were h