I Samuel
Lesson 28 - Chapter 16 and 17
Last week in 1
st
Samuel 16 we saw young David, son of Yishai (Jesse) anointed by Samuel,
but the narrator is careful NOT to say that David was anointed “king over Israel”. It was
probably not entirely clear to David’s family (and whoever else was in attendance) just what
the anointing ceremony was intended to accomplish. There is no hint than anyone but Samuel
(and Yehoveh who sent him) knew what an enormous event had just transpired.
It is interesting that while one name is often used by many Bible characters we don’t ever see
the name David duplicated. In Hebrew it is Dawid, but because it is an unusual name the
Sages don’t entirely agree on its meaning. I won’t go into all the suggestions but the one that
is most generally agreed upon is that it means, “beloved”. What’s important for us to grasp in
our time is that much had been made that no ancient artifact bearing the name Dawid had
ever been found in Israel, but somewhat recently there have been a couple of finds that refers
to him. Probably the most important one is known as the Victory Stele that was uncovered in
Tel Dan (the far north of Israel) that speaks very plainly of the “house of Dawid” Some have
tried to claim that this might be referring to another and different “house of Dawid” but not the
David of the Bible (or better, David’s dynasty), but that is a rather implausible stretch
because Dawid was such a rare name in Israel and the stele specifically refers to Israel,
Judah, and speaks of the “house of David” as being the royal house. It can be no other than
the Biblical King David.
We find that the Bible speaks of 3 separate occasions when David was anointed: the first time
was here when Samuel anointed him as nagid, king in waiting. Although the passage (verse
13) where the anointing happens doesn’t specifically say “king in waiting”, it is made evident
earlier in verse 1 that Samuel was sent to the family of Jesse in Bethlehem to do just that.
The second anointing would be performed by the leaders of Judah for David “to be a king over
the House of Judah”, and it is recorded in 2
nd
Samuel 2:4. The third time he would be anointed
by the elders of Israel to be a “king over Israel” as recorded in 2
nd
Samuel 5:3. A king over
Judah and a king over Israel are by no means the same thing.
I make this point at this time because while the Bible contains many mysteries, the reasons
that some things happened as they did are quite apparent and we don’t have to wonder. We
have learned enough of the history and regional politics of that era to see that now was NOT
the moment for Samuel to announce David as the new king (because Saul was still firmly
entrenched on the throne and he had the full backing of the northern tribes). Further that since
the Israelites’ loyalties were divided between the northern tribes led by Ephraim (and their king
was Saul), and the southern tribes led by Judah (who only tacitly acknowledged Saul); it was
completely logical that David’s own tribe (Judah) would be the first to wholeheartedly accept
him as their king. Only after David was king of the south (King of Judah) was he in any position
to consolidate his power; but first King Saul had to die so that the throne became vacant and a
1 / 7

power struggle over the leadership of the northern tribes would ensue. In this way, under
David, the north and the south would become united into one sovereign nation called Israel.
Thus when in 2
nd
Samuel 5:3 we read that David was anointed by the elders of Israel to be
king over Israel, what that really meant was that David was accepted by the leaders of the
northern tribes who had formerly given their loyalty to Saul (David had already been anointed
some time earlier by the southern tribes). This is why we’ll find that David knew he
immediately had to search for a neutral site to make his capital city (which turned out to be
Jerusalem), otherwise he’d be seen as favoring one tribal coalition over the other and he
wouldn’t be viewed as the legitimate and even-handed king over ALL 12 tribes.
We also need to go forward in the all-important context that the Spirit of Yehoveh had departed
from King Saul. And this Holy Spirit was not only the source of power and enlightenment for
God’s earthly governor it was also the spirit of a sound mind. Thus we read that since God’s
Spirit had left Saul it was instantly replaced with another kind of Spirit that caused evil to befall
the king. And the principle that we see so clearly on display here is that there is no such thing
as a human whose soul is not occupied with a supernatural spiritual influence. This
supernatural influence is either going to be for good or for evil; this influence will either cause
good to flow or evil to run amok (there is no middle ground and there is no such thing as a
spiritual equivalent of Switzerland). In turn we are informed that the Holy Spirit of good that
was taken from Sha’ul now fell upon David.
Let’s pick up at verse 13.
RE-READ 1
ST
SAMUEL 16:13 – end
The effects of the Lord departing from Saul, and of the spiritual influence that caused evil
replacing it, were physically evident and clearly observable and those who were closest to him
couldn’t help but notice. It is interesting that the one who seemed to be oblivious to the effects
of it all was Sha’ul himself. Oh, he no doubt recognized when he was feeling especially
agitated, melancholy, depressed, and irrationally angry but he didn’t seem to recognize why.
Just as he never could seem to make the leap of faith by connecting the presence of Yehoveh
with his own personal behavior and decisions and thus creating a personal relationship with
the Lord, now he couldn’t seem to make the connection between his emotional and intellectual
deterioration and the absence of Yehoveh. But (terrifying as it is for us to contemplate) in some
ways whether he realized it or not, or finally made that connection or not, no longer mattered;
his earthly and eternal future had already been set in stone. His name had been removed from
the Book of Life. God judged him with the result that Saul would forever remain cut-off from
Yehoveh.
All that was left was for some kind of earthly salve to be applied to Saul’s tormented mind to
give him some relief; and his closest advisors suggested that music might be a good medicine.
Most Bibles (such as the CJB) will translate the Hebrew word ebed as servants, but in this
context it is not referring to menial laborers who suggested the prescription of music, but to his
royal court. Why music? It was a combination of a superstition and an observed reality that
indeed music has an inherent quality that “can soothe the savage breast”.
2 / 7

All ancient societies used music to fight demons and Saul’s advisors were fully aware (as the
passage makes note) that the underlying cause of the king’s depression and fits of rage was a
spirit (that seemed to come and go) that caused evil. So they recommended finding a suitable
musician who could magically exorcize whatever demon or spirit that brought forth evil that
was hounding him and thus provide some relief for their king. In fact when we look closer at the
Hebrew in verse 15 we find that it is said that this spirit from Yehoveh is ba’ath Sha’ul; the
spirit is terrorizing Saul (some Bibles correctly translate it this way).
The king agrees to allow his court to find such a musician and one fellow says he knows of just
the man for the job: one of the son’s of Jesse the Bethlehemite. He describes the musician as
a brave soldier who chooses his words carefully and is pleasant looking. All of this information
is important both for King Saul and for us, the future readers of this story. First is that since
David will by definition have such intimate proximity to the king and necessarily be aware of his
mental and emotional state (especially when it’s at its worst), then he’ll have to be of an
appropriately refined and trustworthy type. The family of Yishai is part of the ruling class of
Judah so David fits the bill in that regard. But David is also a superb player of the lyre, has the
right kind of pleasant appearance, and is properly educated so he can speak well. Although it
doesn’t occur to Saul, these are also the same kinds of attributes that are expected of a king.
So King Saul sends a messenger to Yishai summoning David. Jesse (being wise in the ways
of power and protocol) of course complies and along with David sends a donkey laden with
bread, wine, and a young goat as a gift. Jesse fully understands the tremendous opportunity of
his son having the king’s ear. David immediately ingratiated himself to King Saul and so the
king took a liking to him. In fact King Saul declared David to be his armor-bearer.
Now an armor-bearer is not exactly how it might seem to us. We picture as armor-bearer as a
soldier who carries his bosses’ armor in servant fashion. An armor-bearer was actually more
the title given for a certain official office than it was the descriptions of a task. By no means
does the title indicate that an armor-bearer was one who carried the king’s military gear
(although some probably did). The effect of such a privileged title gave David a position of
prestige and no small amount of authority. It was usual for kings and potentates to have
numerous armor-bearers and in fact in 2
nd
Samuel 18:15 we learn that Joab had 10 men
holding that title, and no doubt they each served separate governmental functions for him in his
administration. So David was an armor-bearer whose function was as the court musician who
played-away the king’s foul moods.
Before we move to chapter 17, I want to clear up something that modern liberal scholars at
times completely pervert (for reasons of an obvious politically correct agenda). In verse 21 we
find it said that Sha’ul “loved” David. Our CJB says “greatly liked”, but that is not accurate. In
fact the original Hebrew says that Saul ahab David (ahab is Hebrew for love). The liberal
innuendo is that there was a homosexual relationship going on here, and later on also between
Jonathon and David. Well, that’s just sheer nonsense. It doesn’t take a very in-depth historical
and linguistic study of the Bible and the Biblical era to learn that ahab is not about an erotic
affection between two people. In the sense used here it means to greatly accept or to bring
near as a trusted person. We find that “love” is commonly used to describe a king-vassal
relationship. So the term “love” (ahab) was a common part of Middle Eastern political language
3 / 7

to describe a person close to the throne or who had royal favor and it had no sexual overtones
whatsoever.
Let’s open our Bibles and read chapter 17, which contains one of the most well-know and
often told stories enjoyed by children and adults. This is a very long chapter, but we’re going
to read it from beginning to end so as to not lose any context.
Depending on which Bible translation you are using, you may find that this chapter does not
contain several verses that I’ll be reading to you; and a result the verse numbers will be
different and fewer. I’ll explain that situation right after we read chapter 17.
READ 1
ST
SAMUEL CHAPTER 17 all
This chapter is somewhat controversial, and the nature of the controversy is best
demonstrated when we notice that the Greek Septuagint’s version of this chapter lacks nearly
half of the verses that are found in the Hebrew Masoretic Text version. Specifically, the
Septuagint does not include verses 12-31, nor verses 41, 48, 50, and 55-58. There are many
academic speculations on this conundrum. One is that the Septuagint is correct, and someone
later added verses to the Masoretic Text. Another is that the Masoretic Text is correct and
several verses were omitted (for some unknown reason) from the Septuagint. Whichever is
factual, the REASON for such a discrepancy is also disputed. Some say that this story of David
and Goliath is a rather sloppy blending of two separate traditions about this incident into one.
Others say that it is not a blending of two traditions but rather it is that the Septuagint (that is
the oldest extant version of the Holy Scriptures in existence, even older than the Dead Sea
Scrolls) is the older and represents one tradition, and the Masoretic Text (the Hebrew Bible
from the 9
th
or 10
th
centuries A.D.) is a newer and different tradition.
I have no reasonable means of arguing this one way or the other. What I will say is that from a
theological standpoint there is no disagreement that the lack of, or addition of, these verses
causes. Mostly it’s just about some extended details surrounding the confrontation between
the Israelites and the Philistines and who was there. When present these verses add to the
color of the story; when absent no context or valuable information is lost.
That said, at the end of the story the presence of verses 55-58 are troublesome and seems to
be inconsistent with earlier parts of the story. It may merely be a storytelling style that
confuses, or it is that some later editor added these verses for some unknown reason. We’ll
deal specifically with those verses when we get to them.
The first few verses of chapter 17 set the scene for the battle between David and Goliath. It
seems that the ever present Philistines had again gathered their strength and (probably
emboldened by the knowledge that Saul was a king in decline and susceptible to irrational
behavior) moved into Israelite territory. Since their territory was generally contiguous to the
southern and central tribal areas of Canaan, it’s of no surprise that we find them setting up
battle lines in Judah.
The place the Philistines chose was strategically important. The Valley of Elah (elah means
4 / 7

Oak or Terebinth) was a natural highway into the hill country of Judah, proceeding through the
coastal plains of Canaan, the Shephelah, from the Philistine homeland. If the Philistines could
control this valley they could move large amounts of troops and supplies rather easily
(something that Israel simply couldn’t allow to happen).
The two cities or villages of Socoh and Azekah were listed in the book of Joshua as being
located in the lowlands of Judah, so the modern day village of Khirbet Shuwiekeh is almost
certainly the right location. It is a popular tourist destination for pilgrims to Israel and having
been there a few times I can tell you that it is a good place to read this story and make it come
alive. The valley there is large, flat and almost like a plain between two mountain ranges, with
a river bed that flows more or less through its center like a stripe running along the back of a
snake.
The valley plain separated the two armies: the Philistines occupying the hills on one side,
Saul’s army of militia on the other. Each side was sizing up the other, and neither was too sure
of what the outcome might be if a battle broke out (a battle that was inevitable).
Something needed to happen to break the paralysis of the situation so suddenly a giant of a
man emerges from the Philistine camp and he begins shouting challenges at the trembling
Israelite soldiers. The giant’s name was Golyat (Goliath) who hailed from Gath, one of the
famous 5 Philistine stronghold cities together known in scholarly circles as the Pentapolis. This
man was enormously tall. The Hebrew texts say he was 6 cubits plus a span. A cubit is about
18 inches, and a span about 9 inches (which approximates the distance from the tip of the
thumb to the tip of the little finger of a spread hand). Thus if the calculation is correct Golyat
stood 9 feet 9 inches tall.
This height was just too extreme for some early Hebrew scholars in Alexandria, Egypt to
accept so they arbitrarily lowered the number to 4 cubits plus a span, which then makes
Goliath a more believable (at least to them) 6 feet 9 inches. These were the scholars who
(around 250 BC) translated the Hebrew Bible into Greek and created the Septuagint. So if your
Bible has the measurement of 4 cubits, then your translation follows the English rendition of
the Septuagint.
In an era when the average height of a man hovered around 5 feet, a man almost 7 feet tall
indeed was a giant. But there is no reason for us to accept that lower number. There are many
reliable historical records of men who grew to Goliath’s height and even a bit more. Philo and
Josephus both have recorded the existence of men in their time that they personally knew of
and were well over 9 feet tall. We have records of a man named John Middleton who lived
during the 1600’s near Liverpool, England and he was reported to be about 9 and one-half
feet tall, and a German fellow called the uncle of Iren who lived in the middle 1800’s who was
reported to be slightly over 10 feet tall.
The thing is that the city of Gath was especially known as a place where remnants of that race
of giants called the Anakim lived (not fee-fie-foe-fum giants, merely very tall men who were
fierce and fearsome warriors).
5 / 7

CJB
Joshua 11:22 No 'Anakim were left in the land of the people of Isra'el- only in 'Azah,
Gat and Ashdod did some remain.
In other words, at this time the only known remaining Anakim were living amongst the
Philistines so it would have come as no great surprise to the Israelites to run into one of them
here at the Valley of Elah. However just the sight of this enormous human being kept the
Israelite soldiers hiding among the rocks and clinging to them for protection like Geckos. In
order to give us the visual impact that Goliath had on Saul’s soldiers, we’re told that he wore
a bronze helmet on that huge noggin’, and also wore a special kind of bronze armor that alone
weighed well over 100 pounds. The armor is more precisely defined as scale-armor. That is, it
was created like shingles on a roof; individual bronze plates overlapped the ones next to them
to keep out arrows and the blows of swords. This is as opposed to what later came to be call a
suit of mail, which were small bronze loops strung tightly together that permitted body armor
with more flexibility and considerably less weight. We actually have a pretty good idea of what
Goliath’s scale-armor looked like because in reliefs created by the Assyrians we see their
charioteers wearing it.
His weapons weren’t terribly advanced; they were just scary-huge. The wooden shaft of his
spear is said to be the size of a weaver’s beam (a beam used to construct a loom), and the
iron spearhead alone weighed 15 pounds. Who could carry such an implement of war, let
alone throw it for any distance?
He also wore protective anklets and carried a scimitar slung across his back. A scimitar is a
curved sword with the sharp edge located along the outside of the curve. This in time became
a very traditional weapon used in the Orient.
Thus we find that except for his face, Golyat’s entire body was protected. The point is that
from a purely physical, earthly standpoint this man could not possibly be beaten by some puny
5 foot tall Israelite soldier. He had every advantage; size, strength, iron weapons, and
confidence. So Goliath came out into the valley plain and called up to the shivering Israelites.
He asked them (more or less rhetorically) if they really WANTED to come out and fight the
Philistines. After all while Goliath is a professional soldier in the professional and experienced
Philistine army, he points out that they are just “slaves” of King Saul. In other words, they
aren’t trained warriors and they aren’t being paid for their services. They are Hebrew farmers,
herdsmen, tradesmen and merchants for the most part. So Goliath gives them an alternative
that was actually fairly usual (generally since warfare itself has existed). He says why not make
it a battle of one Philistine (himself) against one Israelite; a battle of surrogates? Their best
man against the Hebrews’ best man. The bargain was that only one soldier need lose his life
and the army of the defeated soldier side would voluntarily submit to the winning Champion.
Obviously Goliath was not only rather certain that no one would challenge him, but that if
anyone was foolish enough to volunteer the encounter would be a short one.
As verse 11 explains, there were no takers. The mere thought of it frightened the Israelite
troops all the more (which was Goliath’s intent). Of course even if Goliath weren’t there, the
Israelites knew they were at a disadvantage because the Philistines were an overwhelming
military force with the most advanced iron weaponry and largest contingent of Chariots known
6 / 7

in that era. From all human aspects, the defeat of Israel was certain.
Here at verse 12 begins about 20 consecutive verses that are the bulk of the ones that are
excluded from the Septuagint. We immediately run into a term that we’ve confronted before,
“Efrati”. We’ve seen it in a number of forms such as, “Efrath of Judah”, and “Efratah of
Bethlehem”. The term seems to indicate a class of people more than a family or a clan. And
the class is the well-to-do. Another way to say it is, “the fruitful”. Apparently this kind of class
identification fit Yishai’s family, including David (Jesse’s youngest). Here we again see the
issue of how many sons Jesse has pop up, as it says that there were 8 but in other passages it
says 7 (we covered that extensively last week if you want to review it).
Yishai is said to be an old man, which means that his eldest sons were probably in late middle
age. Saying Yishai was old is not just a throw-away statement; its here to explain why he
wasn’t present for the battle (he had reached an age whereby he was exempt from military
commitments). So here we find that David’s brothers Eliav, Avinadav and Shammah were all
present to face the Philistines as Jesse’s family contribution to the war effort. We don’t know
David’s age at this time, but he was a man and not a child. Likely he was in his late-teens at
the youngest. David still seemed to be in charge of his father’s sheep, and so he would tend to
the flocks for a time and then he’d go to King Sha’ul (probably when summoned) to perform
his duties as the court musician.
Verse 16 supplies the information that every day for 40 days Goliath climbed down to the
valley between to the two forces and shouted his challenge to the non-responsive Israelite
soldiers for 40 days. We should pay attention to the number of days being 40. The number 40
holds particular significance in the Bible and refers to a precise number, not just a long period
of time. There are at least ten instances in the Old Testament and New Testament where 40
occurs, either in years or days, e.g. it rained for 40 days and 40 nights, Moses was on the
mountain 40 days and 40 nights, the Israelites wandered 40 years, Yeshua fasted in the
wilderness for 40 days and was seen on the earth for 40 days after His crucifixion.
A 40-something time period (whether that “something” is days, months, or years) is ALWAYS a
period of testing, trial, probation, or chastisement (but not judgment) and ends with a period of
restoration, revival or renewal.
The number 40 represents a pattern in the bible and shows us that God is consistent, so the
meaning of a number in Genesis remains the same all the way to the book of Revelation.
Sometimes the spiritual significance is not revealed directly, but in the case of "40" and its
many examples throughout the Bible, we can be certain of its importance and significance and
it’s of course no different in the story of David and Goliath.
We’ll continue in that story the next time we meet.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
7 / 7