“David and Goliath” in contemporary society has been used as a metaphor for the weaker defeating the stronger. Without diminishing this theme, this paper takes the position that, the implied author, through the narrative, intends to illustrate the characteristics of a good shepherd. This theme is seen through the comparison of Saul and David’s shepherding abilities, the setting and the dialogue between David and Saul. Others have seen in the Goliath story a strong similarity to the Epic of Gilgamesh. Yet others concentrate on synchronizing David’s killing of Goliath with Elhanan’s. Nevertheless, the narrative illustrates to a contemporary audience how to shepherd God’s flock.
The implied author used First Samuel to develop a comparison between the two full-fledged characters, Saul and David, ultimately to illustrate who was the rightful shepherd of God’s flock, Israel. In First Samuel 8, Israel requested that the prophet, Samuel, appoint a king to lead them that they might be like all the other nations. Up to this point, judges/chieftain ruled Israel and unlike other nations, they had no king over them. Upon Israel’s request, God appointed Saul, a Benjaminite, to lead Israel. In chapter sixteen, God chose David of Bethlehem to replace Saul as king of Israel. Both of these individuals, though chosen at different times, God had given the task of shepherding God’s flock, the people of Israel. Both individuals were shepherds of Israel, but only one of them, David, turned out to be the rightful shepherd. The story of David and Goliath confirmed God’s approval of David as chosen leader or shepherd of Israel. This event inaugurated David’s military career, and gave him recognition in Israel and in the sight of Saul. The implied author of the story developed a comparison between Saul and David, assisting the implied reader in identifying which one of the two “deserved” to be shepherd of God’s flock, Israel. What Israel needed at this time was a shepherd who would lead and protect them, so that God’s people would not be like sheep without a shepherd.
The terms ‘sheep’ and ‘shepherd’ had deep metaphorical significance in the Bible. For instance, Israel, the people of God, Scripture referred to as sheep or a flock. The shepherd was the one who cared for the flock of sheep. In ANE, the shepherd was often times not the owner of the sheep. Owners hired shepherds to care for the sheep, to lead them and protect them from predators. In the Bible, a leader of God’s people was often times referred to as a shepherd under God. Scripture refers to God Himself as the Shepherd of Israel because he took care of His people as a shepherd does his/her sheep. In some instances, God used the task of shepherding to prepare the person to lead God’s people. Moses was tending the sheep when God called him in Exodus 3; David, likewise was also tending sheep when God called him in First Samuel 16. The life of Saul and David as shepherds in First Samuel helps to make a comparison between the two. It helps to see the qualities that stood out in David that qualified him as the rightful shepherd of Israel.
The following is a comparison of David and Saul as shepherds:
From this comparison, the life of David was distinct from the life of Saul, in that, David was responsible, courageous, and God’s spirit was upon him. David was willing to go out and fight against Goliath, whereas it was actually Saul’s responsibility to go out and fight the giant. Saul was terrified, and would rather have the young shepherd boy, David, fight Goliath than risk his life. Saul had an obligation as king to fight the Philistine. God chose Saul to defeat the Philistines. Saul was the tallest in Israel and was the one that had the military equipment. Saul needed to take up the challenge and go up against Goliath but he would not, therefore, though Saul was the king of Israel at the time, David was the rightful leader because he fulfilled the shepherd’s duty to defend the flock against Goliath.
The battle took place in the Elah Valley, also known as the Valley of Terebinth, a very important location because of its natural resources and military value. The Elah valley is part of the Judean Shephelah, which is a transition zone between the relatively flat Mediterranean coast and Judah’s central mountains. Controlling these ridges and valleys were of great importance to the economic and national security interests of Israel, for which the implied reader could not miss. The king needed to act to protect the interests of the flock by securing this location. After all, it was to defeat the Philistines that YHWH appointed Saul. However, for forty-days Saul and Israel did nothing while the Philistines contested this important geographical area. Israel wanted a king to fight their battles like all the other nations; instead, Israel got a king worse than other nations, who would not fight their battles. The good shepherd would risk their life for the sheep but the bad shepherd runs at the first sign of danger, scattering the sheep. The setting therefore, contributes significantly to developing the conflict within the plot.
One would expect in a discussion between King Saul and David that the highest power, the king, would be the first to speak. However, the spirit has departed from Saul making it appropriate for the newly anointed, David, to speak first. The implied author, through this technique, illustrates David’s primacy over Saul. The good shepherd, therefore, speaks with the authority of the spirit of the Lord upon them.
While the MT version reads, “Let no man’s courage fail him,” the LXX reads, “let not my lord’s courage fail him”. The MT version was an indirect and euphemistic form used honorifically for ‘your courage.’ “David uses a generalizing phrase because he doesn’t want to come out and say directly what all can see, that the king’s courage is failing him (literally “falling.”)” Saul had failed to live up to his duty as shepherd of the flock of Israel. His courage had fallen invoking the imagery of the false witnesses of Moses’ day forgetting YHWH and of Jericho’s courage falling when they heard YHWH was fighting with Israel. When the shepherds courage fell, so too did all the sheep, leading to forty-days of fleeing in terror for the nation of Israel. David in this evaluative speech condemns Saul’s inaction. The good shepherd would be courageous but the bad shepherd acts cowardly.
Saul resisted David’s agreement to face the Philistine. Saul’s response was that he was too young to face an experienced warrior. This brings up the issue of David’s age. Saul’s term “youth” could fall into two different interpretations. It could be that David did not have sufficient experience in battle. David in verses thirty-four to thirty-six seems to be treating Saul’s remark in this way. However, David was the youngest of Jesse’s sons. Additionally, the Torah only allowed those over the age of twenty to serve in the military. Therefore, Saul’s remark could deal with David’s physical age. The author seems to portray David as inexperienced in military uniform and a young shepherd boy, making both options plausible. Therefore, to be a good shepherd does not require great experience or age.
David delivers a persuasive-dynamic speech to convince Saul of his merits. The structure of David’s speech indicates that God has chosen David to assume the role of shepherd over the flock of Israel. As can be seen by the following chiasmus structure, David was circumscribed by great enemies the lion, bear, and Philistine, however, David’s name appears immediately circumscribed by God on each side shielding him from the enemy. Saul confirmed this message in his response “may YHWH be with you”. The good shepherd therefore, looks not to his own abilities, but to God to shield him.
A. The lion…the bear…the philistine (v. 34-36a)
B. The living God (36b)
C. David (37a)
B’. YHWH (37b)
A’. The lion…the bear…the philistine (37c)
Throughout the narrative Goliath’s name only occurs twice and never in David’s dialogue, showing David’s disdain for him. David calls him “the disgrace”, “that uncircumcised Philistine” and simple “that Philistine”. The good shepherd, therefore, scorns enemies of YHWH. Goliath acts as a minor and flat character in the story. The overall story was not about David and the Philistine but instead was about resolving the conflict over the rightful shepherd of Israel.
Shepherds were legally responsible to the owner for any damage done to the animals under their supervision, unless they could prove that wild beasts were responsible. “The bravery of Palestinian herdsmen was part of their professional pride.” David, in taking on the lion and bear was going beyond his legal obligations to the owner. Similarly, in taking on the Philistine, he would go beyond his legal obligation to his king. Nevertheless, David’s shepherding experience God used to prepare him to assume the role as shepherd of the flock of Israel through delivering them from the hands of the Philistines. In many ways, continuing the work begun under another YHWH empowered lion killer, Samson. God therefore, prepares and empowers good shepherds to do His will.
“Deliver” was a repeated keyword throughout the dialogue. David delivered the animal from the predator’s mouth. God delivered David from the paw of the predator. Finally, God will deliver the Philistine into David’s hand. This deliverance was a dramatic rescue from elements that threatened to destroy them. In this persuasive speech, David asserts his shepherding ability and YHWH’s gift of deliverance, which gives David the confidence, in his predictive discourse, to assert Gods continuing deliverance against the Philistine. This also introduced a new concept into the narrative, YHWH. Israel had acted as if YHWH was irrelevant in the battle and hence all was lost for them. The good shepherd, therefore, seeks YHWH’s deliverance. It was only because YHWH was fighting on the side of Israel that they would have deliverance. YHWH was a force that even the spiritless Saul could not argue with, giving Saul the faith and courage to speak again of YHWH. However, Saul did not fully realize the implications of YHWH and sought to put armor on David.
Saul putting the king’s armor on David confirmed and foreshadowed David’s royal status. The implied author used this scene, first, to indicate that God’s enablement was greater than human devices and second, to symbolize David’s rejection of Saul’s approach to kingship. David instead would become shepherd leaders like the Patriarchs and Moses believing in the deliverance of YHWH. “Thematically, heroic fitness will be seen to reside in something other than being head and shoulders taller than all the people, or six cubits tall, like Goliath.”
A bit different way of approaching this story is as a polemic with the Epic of Gilgamesh. Gilgamesh, a shepherd, took on a giant Humbaba. Gilgamesh was met with strong objections on his quest to slay the giant from Enkidu, however, Gilgamesh was the better rhetorician and convinced Enkidu making a vow with him. Enkidu showed great cowardice along the journey, continually wanting to abort the mission. Gilgamesh appeared before the elders of Uruk and they armed him with a quiver, bow, ax and two-edged sword. Upon encountering Humbaba, Humbaba made an offer of service to Gilgamesh, but Enkidu urged Gilgamesh not to trust him. Gilgamesh took the axe and swung it into Humbaba’s neck; that night Humbaba’s head was swinging from a tree.
Much like Gilgamesh, David, a shepherd himself, faced objections from his brothers and the king. Saul was not very courageous in the battle. The stakes of the David’s battle of champions was over who would become whose servants. David armed himself simply with a slingshot, five stones and a shepherd’s staff but in one blow, he killed the giant and eventually decapitated him. However, there was a glaring contrast between Gilgamesh and David. While David went to fight the giant to remove the disgrace from Israel that all might know that Israel had a God, Gilgamesh wanted honor, glory and booty. While David was aware that Saul had offered the giant slayer great rewards, David never brings it up, before or after the battle, only receiving a military commission. As such, David fulfills his Deuteronomic duty “not (to) act haughtily toward his fellows.” David did not care about his own glory but that of YHWH and the community. The implied author very easily could have been playing off aspects of the Epic of Gilgamesh in the interest of asserting how a Deuteronomic king or the good shepherd would have different motivations than those of other nations. David was the good shepherd precisely because of his adherence to the law, while Saul acted like all the other nations, in violation of God’s command, a theme that would continue in Saul’s pursuit of David.
Further, controversy of this passage is the issue that Goliath of Gath dies twice in Samuel, once at the hand of David and once at the hand of Elhanan. A potential avenue out is if one reads the Chronicler account of the Elhanan slaying into the Samuel account. In the parallel account, Elhanan killed Goliath’s brother. Those who take this position would argue for a copyist error in the Samuel account. Other avenues are that there was two Goliath’s of Gath or that Elhanan was David’s real name with David being the name he assumed on the throne. Some have even argued that Elhanan killed Goliath, but later generations attributed it to David. Whatever the case may be, all would be speculation. The important piece was that in the mega-narrative this conflict exposed who the true shepherd of Israel was, resolving the conflict caused by the anointing of David while there was a sitting king. Goliath acted as a litmus test as to who was the true shepherd of the flock of Israel, who would defend Israel against the disgrace.
The story of Saul and David has many valuable lessons for contemporary leaders of the church, or shepherds of God’s flock. The owner hired and entrusted the shepherd to lead, feed, protect and tend to the sheep. God called both Saul and David to care for His sheep, but only one of them was a true shepherd of the flock. David was one who was after God’s own heart and he led the sheep while trusting in God’s strength and power to do so; he did so not for his own glory and honor but to the honor of YHWH. David’s life illustrated how to rightfully shepherd God’s flock, in the way that he conducted himself and took on the responsibility of truly shepherding the flock. Shepherding God’s flock requires sacrifice, faithfulness and having an obedient spirit. The one True Shepherd, YHWH Himself, ultimately leads every shepherd. The owner of the flock is YHWH and it is to Him that each shepherd is accountable to, and as such, YHWH Himself provides all the necessary resources to lead the sheep. He only requires faithfulness and obedience on the part of the shepherd. The shepherd occupation would sometimes involve dishonest gain on the part of the shepherds. They would at times use some product from the herd for their own immediate sustenance. This became very common, that the dishonesty of this occupation was an established fact. The life of David illustrated how a true shepherd of God’s flock conducted themselves with the welfare of the sheep as top priority.
Lastly, as shepherds of God’s flock, one must trust the owner of the sheep not only to provide them with what they need to care for the sheep, but also to let Him fight for them. Those that would attack the flock are attacking the owner’s business, which therefore would require the owner’s involvement. God is involved in the sheep’s life and is the one who fights. Whatever one does as shepherds, they are doing it for the owner of the sheep and they are under His authority. Shepherds lead God’s sheep and fight for YHWH’s honor and glory. The call is simply to shepherd the Father’s Flock.
Bibliography
Alter, Robert. The David Story: A Translation With Commentary of 1 and 2 Samuel. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, INC. 1999.
Beck, John A. "David and Goliath, a story of place: the narrative-geographical shaping of 1 Samuel 17." Westminster Theological Journal 68, no. 2. 2006: 321-330.
Bergen, Robert D. “The New American Commentary: 1, 2 Samuel: Volume 7.” United States: Broadman & Holman Publishers. 1996.
Brueggemann, Walter. First and Second Samuel Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching. Louisville: John Knox Press, 1990.
Carnes, Phillip Gene. Like Sheep Without A Shepherd: The Shepherd Metaphor & Its Primacy For Biblical Leadership. Reformed Theological Seminary. 2007.
Ceresko, Anthony R. "A rhetorical analysis of David's "boast" (1 Samuel 17:34-37): some reflections of method." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 47, no. 1. 1985: 58-74
Frolov, Serge, and Allen Wright. "Homeric and Ancient Near Eastern Intertextuality in 1 Samuel 17." Journal Of Biblical Literature 130, no. 3. 2011: 451-471
Hayes, J. Daniel. "Reconsidering the Height of Goliath." Journal Of The Evangelical Theological Society 48. 2005: 701-714.
Hertzberg, Hans Wilhelm. I & II Samuel. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press. 1964.
Isbell, Charles David. "A Biblical Midrash on David and Goliath." SJOT: Scandinavian Journal Of The Old Testament 20, no. 2. 2006: 259-263
JPS Tankh, The Holy Scriptures. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society. 2008.
Klein, Ralph W. “Word Biblical Commentary 1 Samuel: Volume 10.” Waco Texas: Word Books, Publisher. 1983.
Macarther, John. The Macarthur Study Bible: New American Standard Bible. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, INC. 2006.
Mason, Herbert. Gilgamesh A Verse Narrative. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company. 1971
Rasmussen, Carl. “Kh Qeiiyafa.” Holy Land Photos. 2012. <http://www.holylandphotos.org/browse.asp?s=1,2,6,27,434>
Rudman, Dominic. "The Commissioning Stories of Saul and David as Theological Allegory." Vetus Testamentum 50, no. 4. 2000: 519-530.
Sakenfeld, Katharine D. The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2009.
Tenney, Merrill C., The Zondervan Encyclopedia of The Bible, Vol. 5, Michigan: Zondervan, Grand Rapids 2009.
The Holy Bible, English Standard Version. Illinois: Good News Publishers. 2001.
Tsumura, David Toshio. The First Book of Samuel. Grand Rapids Michigan: William B Eerdmans Publishing Company. 2007.
The implied author used First Samuel to develop a comparison between the two full-fledged characters, Saul and David, ultimately to illustrate who was the rightful shepherd of God’s flock, Israel. In First Samuel 8, Israel requested that the prophet, Samuel, appoint a king to lead them that they might be like all the other nations. Up to this point, judges/chieftain ruled Israel and unlike other nations, they had no king over them. Upon Israel’s request, God appointed Saul, a Benjaminite, to lead Israel. In chapter sixteen, God chose David of Bethlehem to replace Saul as king of Israel. Both of these individuals, though chosen at different times, God had given the task of shepherding God’s flock, the people of Israel. Both individuals were shepherds of Israel, but only one of them, David, turned out to be the rightful shepherd. The story of David and Goliath confirmed God’s approval of David as chosen leader or shepherd of Israel. This event inaugurated David’s military career, and gave him recognition in Israel and in the sight of Saul. The implied author of the story developed a comparison between Saul and David, assisting the implied reader in identifying which one of the two “deserved” to be shepherd of God’s flock, Israel. What Israel needed at this time was a shepherd who would lead and protect them, so that God’s people would not be like sheep without a shepherd.
The terms ‘sheep’ and ‘shepherd’ had deep metaphorical significance in the Bible. For instance, Israel, the people of God, Scripture referred to as sheep or a flock. The shepherd was the one who cared for the flock of sheep. In ANE, the shepherd was often times not the owner of the sheep. Owners hired shepherds to care for the sheep, to lead them and protect them from predators. In the Bible, a leader of God’s people was often times referred to as a shepherd under God. Scripture refers to God Himself as the Shepherd of Israel because he took care of His people as a shepherd does his/her sheep. In some instances, God used the task of shepherding to prepare the person to lead God’s people. Moses was tending the sheep when God called him in Exodus 3; David, likewise was also tending sheep when God called him in First Samuel 16. The life of Saul and David as shepherds in First Samuel helps to make a comparison between the two. It helps to see the qualities that stood out in David that qualified him as the rightful shepherd of Israel.
The following is a comparison of David and Saul as shepherds:
SAUL | DAVID |
Irresponsible Lost his father’s donkey’s (1 Samuel 9:3, 20) | Responsible Left his father’s flock with a shepherd (1 Samuel 17:20) |
Fearful Hid himself among the baggage (1 Samuel 10:22) Would not step up to fight against Goliath (1 Samuel 17:11) | Courageous David left the baggage and ran to the battle line (1 Samuel 17:22) Stepped up to the challenge to fight Goliath (1 Samuel 17:32) |
God’s Spirit left him After his disobedience, the Lord’s Spirit departed from him (1 Samuel 16:14) | God’s Spirit was with him The Lord was with him (1 Samuel 16:18) |
From this comparison, the life of David was distinct from the life of Saul, in that, David was responsible, courageous, and God’s spirit was upon him. David was willing to go out and fight against Goliath, whereas it was actually Saul’s responsibility to go out and fight the giant. Saul was terrified, and would rather have the young shepherd boy, David, fight Goliath than risk his life. Saul had an obligation as king to fight the Philistine. God chose Saul to defeat the Philistines. Saul was the tallest in Israel and was the one that had the military equipment. Saul needed to take up the challenge and go up against Goliath but he would not, therefore, though Saul was the king of Israel at the time, David was the rightful leader because he fulfilled the shepherd’s duty to defend the flock against Goliath.
The battle took place in the Elah Valley, also known as the Valley of Terebinth, a very important location because of its natural resources and military value. The Elah valley is part of the Judean Shephelah, which is a transition zone between the relatively flat Mediterranean coast and Judah’s central mountains. Controlling these ridges and valleys were of great importance to the economic and national security interests of Israel, for which the implied reader could not miss. The king needed to act to protect the interests of the flock by securing this location. After all, it was to defeat the Philistines that YHWH appointed Saul. However, for forty-days Saul and Israel did nothing while the Philistines contested this important geographical area. Israel wanted a king to fight their battles like all the other nations; instead, Israel got a king worse than other nations, who would not fight their battles. The good shepherd would risk their life for the sheep but the bad shepherd runs at the first sign of danger, scattering the sheep. The setting therefore, contributes significantly to developing the conflict within the plot.
One would expect in a discussion between King Saul and David that the highest power, the king, would be the first to speak. However, the spirit has departed from Saul making it appropriate for the newly anointed, David, to speak first. The implied author, through this technique, illustrates David’s primacy over Saul. The good shepherd, therefore, speaks with the authority of the spirit of the Lord upon them.
While the MT version reads, “Let no man’s courage fail him,” the LXX reads, “let not my lord’s courage fail him”. The MT version was an indirect and euphemistic form used honorifically for ‘your courage.’ “David uses a generalizing phrase because he doesn’t want to come out and say directly what all can see, that the king’s courage is failing him (literally “falling.”)” Saul had failed to live up to his duty as shepherd of the flock of Israel. His courage had fallen invoking the imagery of the false witnesses of Moses’ day forgetting YHWH and of Jericho’s courage falling when they heard YHWH was fighting with Israel. When the shepherds courage fell, so too did all the sheep, leading to forty-days of fleeing in terror for the nation of Israel. David in this evaluative speech condemns Saul’s inaction. The good shepherd would be courageous but the bad shepherd acts cowardly.
Saul resisted David’s agreement to face the Philistine. Saul’s response was that he was too young to face an experienced warrior. This brings up the issue of David’s age. Saul’s term “youth” could fall into two different interpretations. It could be that David did not have sufficient experience in battle. David in verses thirty-four to thirty-six seems to be treating Saul’s remark in this way. However, David was the youngest of Jesse’s sons. Additionally, the Torah only allowed those over the age of twenty to serve in the military. Therefore, Saul’s remark could deal with David’s physical age. The author seems to portray David as inexperienced in military uniform and a young shepherd boy, making both options plausible. Therefore, to be a good shepherd does not require great experience or age.
David delivers a persuasive-dynamic speech to convince Saul of his merits. The structure of David’s speech indicates that God has chosen David to assume the role of shepherd over the flock of Israel. As can be seen by the following chiasmus structure, David was circumscribed by great enemies the lion, bear, and Philistine, however, David’s name appears immediately circumscribed by God on each side shielding him from the enemy. Saul confirmed this message in his response “may YHWH be with you”. The good shepherd therefore, looks not to his own abilities, but to God to shield him.
A. The lion…the bear…the philistine (v. 34-36a)
B. The living God (36b)
C. David (37a)
B’. YHWH (37b)
A’. The lion…the bear…the philistine (37c)
Throughout the narrative Goliath’s name only occurs twice and never in David’s dialogue, showing David’s disdain for him. David calls him “the disgrace”, “that uncircumcised Philistine” and simple “that Philistine”. The good shepherd, therefore, scorns enemies of YHWH. Goliath acts as a minor and flat character in the story. The overall story was not about David and the Philistine but instead was about resolving the conflict over the rightful shepherd of Israel.
Shepherds were legally responsible to the owner for any damage done to the animals under their supervision, unless they could prove that wild beasts were responsible. “The bravery of Palestinian herdsmen was part of their professional pride.” David, in taking on the lion and bear was going beyond his legal obligations to the owner. Similarly, in taking on the Philistine, he would go beyond his legal obligation to his king. Nevertheless, David’s shepherding experience God used to prepare him to assume the role as shepherd of the flock of Israel through delivering them from the hands of the Philistines. In many ways, continuing the work begun under another YHWH empowered lion killer, Samson. God therefore, prepares and empowers good shepherds to do His will.
“Deliver” was a repeated keyword throughout the dialogue. David delivered the animal from the predator’s mouth. God delivered David from the paw of the predator. Finally, God will deliver the Philistine into David’s hand. This deliverance was a dramatic rescue from elements that threatened to destroy them. In this persuasive speech, David asserts his shepherding ability and YHWH’s gift of deliverance, which gives David the confidence, in his predictive discourse, to assert Gods continuing deliverance against the Philistine. This also introduced a new concept into the narrative, YHWH. Israel had acted as if YHWH was irrelevant in the battle and hence all was lost for them. The good shepherd, therefore, seeks YHWH’s deliverance. It was only because YHWH was fighting on the side of Israel that they would have deliverance. YHWH was a force that even the spiritless Saul could not argue with, giving Saul the faith and courage to speak again of YHWH. However, Saul did not fully realize the implications of YHWH and sought to put armor on David.
Saul putting the king’s armor on David confirmed and foreshadowed David’s royal status. The implied author used this scene, first, to indicate that God’s enablement was greater than human devices and second, to symbolize David’s rejection of Saul’s approach to kingship. David instead would become shepherd leaders like the Patriarchs and Moses believing in the deliverance of YHWH. “Thematically, heroic fitness will be seen to reside in something other than being head and shoulders taller than all the people, or six cubits tall, like Goliath.”
A bit different way of approaching this story is as a polemic with the Epic of Gilgamesh. Gilgamesh, a shepherd, took on a giant Humbaba. Gilgamesh was met with strong objections on his quest to slay the giant from Enkidu, however, Gilgamesh was the better rhetorician and convinced Enkidu making a vow with him. Enkidu showed great cowardice along the journey, continually wanting to abort the mission. Gilgamesh appeared before the elders of Uruk and they armed him with a quiver, bow, ax and two-edged sword. Upon encountering Humbaba, Humbaba made an offer of service to Gilgamesh, but Enkidu urged Gilgamesh not to trust him. Gilgamesh took the axe and swung it into Humbaba’s neck; that night Humbaba’s head was swinging from a tree.
Much like Gilgamesh, David, a shepherd himself, faced objections from his brothers and the king. Saul was not very courageous in the battle. The stakes of the David’s battle of champions was over who would become whose servants. David armed himself simply with a slingshot, five stones and a shepherd’s staff but in one blow, he killed the giant and eventually decapitated him. However, there was a glaring contrast between Gilgamesh and David. While David went to fight the giant to remove the disgrace from Israel that all might know that Israel had a God, Gilgamesh wanted honor, glory and booty. While David was aware that Saul had offered the giant slayer great rewards, David never brings it up, before or after the battle, only receiving a military commission. As such, David fulfills his Deuteronomic duty “not (to) act haughtily toward his fellows.” David did not care about his own glory but that of YHWH and the community. The implied author very easily could have been playing off aspects of the Epic of Gilgamesh in the interest of asserting how a Deuteronomic king or the good shepherd would have different motivations than those of other nations. David was the good shepherd precisely because of his adherence to the law, while Saul acted like all the other nations, in violation of God’s command, a theme that would continue in Saul’s pursuit of David.
Further, controversy of this passage is the issue that Goliath of Gath dies twice in Samuel, once at the hand of David and once at the hand of Elhanan. A potential avenue out is if one reads the Chronicler account of the Elhanan slaying into the Samuel account. In the parallel account, Elhanan killed Goliath’s brother. Those who take this position would argue for a copyist error in the Samuel account. Other avenues are that there was two Goliath’s of Gath or that Elhanan was David’s real name with David being the name he assumed on the throne. Some have even argued that Elhanan killed Goliath, but later generations attributed it to David. Whatever the case may be, all would be speculation. The important piece was that in the mega-narrative this conflict exposed who the true shepherd of Israel was, resolving the conflict caused by the anointing of David while there was a sitting king. Goliath acted as a litmus test as to who was the true shepherd of the flock of Israel, who would defend Israel against the disgrace.
The story of Saul and David has many valuable lessons for contemporary leaders of the church, or shepherds of God’s flock. The owner hired and entrusted the shepherd to lead, feed, protect and tend to the sheep. God called both Saul and David to care for His sheep, but only one of them was a true shepherd of the flock. David was one who was after God’s own heart and he led the sheep while trusting in God’s strength and power to do so; he did so not for his own glory and honor but to the honor of YHWH. David’s life illustrated how to rightfully shepherd God’s flock, in the way that he conducted himself and took on the responsibility of truly shepherding the flock. Shepherding God’s flock requires sacrifice, faithfulness and having an obedient spirit. The one True Shepherd, YHWH Himself, ultimately leads every shepherd. The owner of the flock is YHWH and it is to Him that each shepherd is accountable to, and as such, YHWH Himself provides all the necessary resources to lead the sheep. He only requires faithfulness and obedience on the part of the shepherd. The shepherd occupation would sometimes involve dishonest gain on the part of the shepherds. They would at times use some product from the herd for their own immediate sustenance. This became very common, that the dishonesty of this occupation was an established fact. The life of David illustrated how a true shepherd of God’s flock conducted themselves with the welfare of the sheep as top priority.
Lastly, as shepherds of God’s flock, one must trust the owner of the sheep not only to provide them with what they need to care for the sheep, but also to let Him fight for them. Those that would attack the flock are attacking the owner’s business, which therefore would require the owner’s involvement. God is involved in the sheep’s life and is the one who fights. Whatever one does as shepherds, they are doing it for the owner of the sheep and they are under His authority. Shepherds lead God’s sheep and fight for YHWH’s honor and glory. The call is simply to shepherd the Father’s Flock.
Bibliography
Alter, Robert. The David Story: A Translation With Commentary of 1 and 2 Samuel. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, INC. 1999.
Beck, John A. "David and Goliath, a story of place: the narrative-geographical shaping of 1 Samuel 17." Westminster Theological Journal 68, no. 2. 2006: 321-330.
Bergen, Robert D. “The New American Commentary: 1, 2 Samuel: Volume 7.” United States: Broadman & Holman Publishers. 1996.
Brueggemann, Walter. First and Second Samuel Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching. Louisville: John Knox Press, 1990.
Carnes, Phillip Gene. Like Sheep Without A Shepherd: The Shepherd Metaphor & Its Primacy For Biblical Leadership. Reformed Theological Seminary. 2007.
Ceresko, Anthony R. "A rhetorical analysis of David's "boast" (1 Samuel 17:34-37): some reflections of method." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 47, no. 1. 1985: 58-74
Frolov, Serge, and Allen Wright. "Homeric and Ancient Near Eastern Intertextuality in 1 Samuel 17." Journal Of Biblical Literature 130, no. 3. 2011: 451-471
Hayes, J. Daniel. "Reconsidering the Height of Goliath." Journal Of The Evangelical Theological Society 48. 2005: 701-714.
Hertzberg, Hans Wilhelm. I & II Samuel. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press. 1964.
Isbell, Charles David. "A Biblical Midrash on David and Goliath." SJOT: Scandinavian Journal Of The Old Testament 20, no. 2. 2006: 259-263
JPS Tankh, The Holy Scriptures. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society. 2008.
Klein, Ralph W. “Word Biblical Commentary 1 Samuel: Volume 10.” Waco Texas: Word Books, Publisher. 1983.
Macarther, John. The Macarthur Study Bible: New American Standard Bible. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, INC. 2006.
Mason, Herbert. Gilgamesh A Verse Narrative. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company. 1971
Rasmussen, Carl. “Kh Qeiiyafa.” Holy Land Photos. 2012. <http://www.holylandphotos.org/browse.asp?s=1,2,6,27,434>
Rudman, Dominic. "The Commissioning Stories of Saul and David as Theological Allegory." Vetus Testamentum 50, no. 4. 2000: 519-530.
Sakenfeld, Katharine D. The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2009.
Tenney, Merrill C., The Zondervan Encyclopedia of The Bible, Vol. 5, Michigan: Zondervan, Grand Rapids 2009.
The Holy Bible, English Standard Version. Illinois: Good News Publishers. 2001.
Tsumura, David Toshio. The First Book of Samuel. Grand Rapids Michigan: William B Eerdmans Publishing Company. 2007.
