1 Samuel 17

Combat by Champions

Hittite Apology of Hattushili, c. 1267 – 1237 BC. The story of Hattushili personally defeating his enemy is a strong parallel to the story of David and Goliath.

Kim Walton. The Istanbul Archaeological Museums, Turkey.

The contest joined between the “champion” Goliath and David is perhaps the best known example from antiquity of a military conflict decided by “single combat,” namely, a fight between representatives of the warring factions intended to get an initial indication of how the general battle would go. The logic behind such contests was grounded in the belief that battles were ultimately decided by God or the gods, and that the champion representing the more powerful deity would triumph. The premise that the people of the loser would serve the people of the winner did not suggest that the general battle would not be fought; it just gave an assessment of the expected outcome. A superior champion would serve as a ready instrument for the god, but the gods were not constrained to the relative skills and strength of the combatants. In a match as lopsided as this, a victory by David would serve as incontrovertible evidence of the superiority of Yahweh.

Other examples of similar situations from ancient sources are well-known, such as those in Homer’s Iliad (Paris versus Menelaus, Hector versus Ajax) and the Egyptian Story of Sinuhe, in which Sinuhe defeats a Syrian challenger. Sinuhe uses an arrow in place of David’s sling, but, like David, he then uses his opponent’s own sword to complete the victory. While certain similarities with the story of David’s triumph over Goliath are striking, it is important to distinguish between duels settling personal grievances and representative combat. A good example of the latter is found in an account by Hattushili III, who defeated the champion of the enemy with the result that the rest of the army fled. We can therefore see that David’s confrontation with Goliath illustrates a practice that was familiar in the ancient world. By any account, it should have been Saul, who had been chosen to lead the armies, who represented the Israelites in battle. ◆

Struck the Philistine on the forehead (17:49). Questions have been raised concerning whether a stone from David’s sling could have struck Goliath’s forehead, given the kinds of helmets that Philistines are depicted as wearing (see illustration). But the biblical text does not suggest that Goliath’s armor was typical Philistine hardware but exceptional (see sidebar on “Goliath’s Armor” at 17:5 – 7). That said, it is interesting to note that the Hebrew word rendered “greave” in verse 6 (miṣḥâ), which occurs only here in the Hebrew Bible, is very close, if not identical, to the Hebrew word for “forehead” (mēṣah). Noting this curiosity, A. Deem has suggested that David’s stone finds its mark not in Goliath’s forehead but at the “greave” in the gap required for walking. It is difficult to decide between these two interpretations; in either case Goliath is toppled and quickly dispatched by David, using Goliath’s own sword (v. 51).

Psalm 23. The Good Shepherd

A psalm of trust which celebrates the gracious care of Yahweh; and in which the needs and troubles of the psalmist are touched on only incidentally. Most commentators find two pictures of Yahweh here: the Shepherd looking after His sheep (vv. 1–4), and the Host providing for His guest (vv. 5, 6). Certainly vv. 5, 6 do not maintain the sheep metaphor, but there is no need to assume the conscious introduction of another metaphor; the psalm is a unified expression of what God does for the psalmist. Verses 5, 6 suggest that it was written for, and most suitably used at, a sacrificial meal in the temple, probably a thanksgiving banquet (see on 22:25; cf. 36:8; 65:4; 116:17 f.) after an experience of deliverance.

It is not surprising, especially in the light of Jn 10 (cf. Heb. 13:20; 1 Pet. 2:25), that Christians have applied this psalm to Jesus Christ; nor that it has been paraphrased a number of times to be sung as a hymn: e.g. ‘The Lord’s my Shepherd, I’ll not want’ (Whittingham, etc.); ‘The God of love my shepherd is’ (Herbert); and ‘The king of love my shepherd is’ (Baker).

TITLE: see Introduction III. 1, 2. 1. shepherd: used metaphorically in Israel and in other ancient Near Eastern nations as a title for a king or leader (cf. 2 Sam. 5:2; 1 Kg. 22:17; Jer. 23:1 ff.; Ezek. 34:1 ff.), it contains the ideas of authority and care. In the OT Yahweh is usually thought of as the shepherd of Israel, rather than of the individual (80:1; cf. 28:9; 100:3; Isa. 40:11; Jer. 23:3; Ezek. 34:11 ff.). 3. my soul: see on 3:2; 19:7. right paths: conveys the ideas of ‘straightness’, ‘conformity to law’, and ‘deliverance’ (see on 33:5; 5:8). for his name’s sake: because it is His nature to do so (see on 5:11; 20:1). 4. the darkest valley: It could apply to any terrifying experience (see on 9:13). rod: a club (often iron-tipped) used for protection from wild animals. staff: used for support and guidance. comfort: there is no promise of immunity from trouble or suffering.

5. enemies: presumably fellow Israelites, also in the temple. anoint: lit. ‘make fat’ (cf. NEB ‘hast richly bathed’); not the word used for anointing a king but of entertaining a guest (cf. Lk. 7:46). 6. love: Heb. ḥesed (see on 5:7). follow: ‘or ‘pursue’ (cf. the enemies of v. 5). I will dwell: NIV follows the ancient versions; MT reads ‘I shall return (to)’. In either case it expresses the worshipper’s ideal of continual communion with God (see on 15:1): ‘your house will be my home as long as I live’ (GNB). house: see on 5:7. forever: lit. ‘to length of days; cf. NEB ‘my whole life long’.