Curious about David and Goliath

I focused on David and Goliath (1 Samuel 17) in my lectio divina last week. A couple of questions piqued my curiosity as the week progressed. I really don’t know what significance they may have, if any, but I wonder if anyone else has thoughts.

First, the story seems to suggest Goliath’s challenge was to hand-to-hand combat (vv. 8-9), which made David coming with his staff (v. 40) prompting Goliath’s taunt about coming with sticks (v. 43). So as Goliath and David approached the battle line (v. 48), Goliath does not seem to expect to be attacked until they are both there, but David slings the stone before getting close enough for Goliath to get a hand on him. Was that a violation of the expectations if not rules? Was David “cheating” with a preemptive attack?

As a kid, I fooled around with my own homemade sling and some small stones, trying to imitate David. Not only was my precision grossly inadequate to hit a moving target while was moving too, I wondered if it was possible to develop enough skill to hit someone in the forehead. We are told Goliath was wearing a helmet, so the opening for such a direct hit would be even smaller. So I am wondering, was David really that good a shot, or did God guide and propel the stone?

Second, what actually killed Goliath? The text has some ambiguity. “David prevailed over the Philistine with a sling and a stone, striking down the Philistine and killing him; there was no sword in David’s hand. Then David ran and stood over the Philistine; he grasped his sword, drew it out of its sheath, and killed him; then he cut off his head with it.” (vv. 50-51)

Did the stone to the forehead actually kill Goliath or just render him unconscious and defenseless when David took Goliath’s sword? Did David kill the unconscious Goliath by running him through with his own sword, or was it the beheading that killed Goliath?

I am not arguing for any particular answers to these questions, nor for their great significance. Only musing about thoughts that linger after spending a week with the story.

A Question of Fair Balance

Moravian Daily Texts is one of the resources Candy and I use for our evening devotional time. Last night included these two pieces that strike me as speaking to current issues in this country.

 

2 Corinthians 8:13-15

I do not mean that there should be relief for others and pressure on you, but it is a question of a fair balance between your present abundance and their need, so that their abundance may be for your need, in order that there may be a fair balance. As it is written, “The one who had much did not have too much, and the one who had little did not have too little.”

 

Psalm 72:2-4

May he [the king] judge your people with righteousness, and your poor with justice. May the mountains yield prosperity for the people, and the hills, in righteousness. May he defend the cause of the poor of the people, give deliverance to the needy, and crush the oppressor.

 

The Corinthian letters were written to churches, not governments or economists, centuries before capitalism was invented. Nevertheless, it strikes me that something is drastically wrong when people of wealth accumulate far more than they can ever use while many others struggle to provide food, shelter, and clothing for their families.

 

The quote “The one who had much did not have too much, and the one who had little did not have too little.” is a reference to God’s provision of manna in Exodus 16:18, which was a model for the recurrent calls for justice by the Hebrew prophets, which 2 Corinthians extends to the economic values for the Church. The US is not a theocratic country as ancient Israel was; and Psalm 72 never mentions the personal piety of the king, but is clear that justice for the poor and prosperity for all are the legitimate responsibility of government, which might be addressed in a variety of ways.