1 Samuel 17:12-29

CRITITCAL AND EXPOSITORY NOTES—

1 Samuel 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 evidently supported by the ‘that’ or ‘this,’ which is evidently added to connect the words with 1 Samuel 16:1. The last words of the verse relating to Jesse the Ephrathite (that is, of Ephrath, the old name for Bethlehem, Genesis 48:7) are difficult.… It seems best with Grotius, Thenius, after Sept., Vulg., Syr., Arab., to substitute ‘in years,’ instead of the text, and render ‘he was advanced in years.’ ” (Erdmann.)

1 Samuel 17:15. “But David went and returned.” Rather he “was going and returning,” i.e., “he went backwards and forwards from Saul to feed his father’s sheep in Bethlehem, so that he was not in the permanent service of Saul, but at that very time was with his father.” (Keil.) “This he could do, since Saul was not always in the gloomy state which required David’s harp.… As totally unpractised in war (so chap. 16 supposes him to be) David, notwithstanding his enrolment among the court-esquires (armour-bearers), could not be needed by Saul in war, and he needed not to be taken along for his music, because in the midst of military affairs Saul’s mind was concentrated on one point, held by one thought.” (Erdmann.)

1 Samuel 17:17. “Take now for thy brethren.” “In those days campaigns rarely lasted above a few days. The soldiers were volunteers or militia, who were supplied with provisions from time to time by their friends at home. The Arab women still carry provisions to their husbands when out on fighting expeditions.” (Jamieson.)

1 Samuel 17:18. “Ten Cheeses,” or “slices of curdled milk.” “Oriental cheeses are very small, resembling in shape and size our penny loaves, as the cheeses of the ancient Hebrews seem also to have been (cf. Job 10:10; Psalms 86:15), and although they are frequently made of so soft a consistence as to resemble curds, those which David carried seem to have been fully formed, pressed, and sufficiently dried to admit of their being carried.” (Jamieson.) “Take their pledge.” “This was a token which, though David had seen them, would be of especial value to the father’s heart as an immediate sign from their own hands that they were alive and well (in place of a letter).” (Erdmann.)

1 Samuel 17:19. This should be read as part of Jesse’s address to David substituting are for the “were” of the English version.

1 Samuel 17:20. “Keeper.” “The only instance in which the hired shepherd is distinguished from the master or one of the family.” (Jamieson.) “Trench.” Or “waggon-rampart,” doubtless a kind of rude fortification formed by a line of waggons and chariots.

1 Samuel 17:22. “His carriage,” i.e., his baggage.

1 Samuel 17:25. “We must conclude that Saul actually made these promises although nothing is afterwards said of their fulfilment, especially as the same thing is repeated in 1 Samuel 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.” (Erdmann.)

1 Samuel 17:26. “Who is this uncircumcised Philistine?” “These words contain the ground of the preceding thought that the insult offered to Israel must be wiped out. This ground lies in the contrast between the stand-point of the Philistine as an uncircumcised who has no community with the living God and the stand-point of this covenant people.… The living God is emphasized over against the dead idols of the Philistines.” (Erdmann.)

1 Samuel 17:28. “Eliab’s questions express the thought

(1) Thou hast nothing to do here, indicating a haughty, quick judging nature, and
(2) reproach David with neglect of duty.” (Erdmann.) “Thou art come down that thou mightest see the battle.” “Such an idea could not have occurred to him had not the warlike tastes of David already been well known to his family. It is more than probable, from this and other circumstances, that he had already wished to join in the first instance with his brothers, but had not been allowed by his friends to do so. But this is hardly sufficient to account for the expressions of Eliab, which must have been founded on a wider experience; and to those who have studied the character of David it will appear almost certain that he had often been led to speak of his desire to see Israel rid of the oppressors who had laid her honour in the dust, and of his hope to take some part in the great work of rending the Philistine yoke from her fair neck.” (Kitto.)

1 Samuel 17:29. “Is there not a cause?” Rather, “Is there not a word?” “Is not this word permitted me? Can I not seek information by such a word?” (Erdmann.)

MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.— 1 Samuel 17:12

DAVID’S VISIT TO THE CAMP

I. The truly great will not allow social advancement and natural gifts to interfere with the obedience which is due to parents. If a man is lifted to a higher condition of social life because he is mentally or morally greater than the rest of his family, that very greatness will lead him to render due honour to his parents, and this will be best shown by his obedience to their lawful commands. If a man deems that because he has risen in social life, or because he is intellectually superior to his father, he is absolved from a son’s duty, he gives a convincing proof that he is not a truly great man, for he lacks that first element of greatness, viz., goodness. In this point Saul and David stand on a level, for both manifested a spirit of filial obedience (see 1 Samuel 9:3). David must have been conscious that he was destined for some great and honourable position in the kingdom, but he was not unduly elated by it, nor did he consider himself thereby freed from his duty to his father. In this he showed himself worthy to be a type of a far greater man—of that Divine Son of David who for many years of His life was subject to His human parents (Luke 2:51), and in so doing has left an example to all sons and daughters, especially to those who are consciously mentally or morally greater than their parents.

II. Inferior spirits are always envious at the elevation of their superiors, and the envy is deep in proportion as the relationship is near. Eliab had seen Samuel anoint David, and although he might not have understood the full significance of the act, he had never recovered the shock he had then sustained at seeing his younger brother preferred before him. He now gives full proof how inferior he was to that despised and hated brother by revealing the envy that ruled his own spirit. It was this demon which prompted him so to misconstrue David’s words and actions. If we look at the most beautiful human face through a coloured and distorted medium we do not see it as it is, for that through which we look imparts to it its own hue and misrepresents the true outline. So it is impossible rightly to estimate a character if we look at it under the influence of envy. Seen through that distorted medium, actions performed from the purest motives, and words the most blameless, will be misjudged and misrepresented. Thus it was that Eliab so misjudged his brother. And the devil is not less malignant, but rather more so, when the objects of its hatred are a man’s own flesh and blood. A man shows himself thus blind to his own interests, for the elevation of one member of a family often leads to the elevation of the rest. Eliab might have considered that the honour thus conferred upon David would reflect some honour upon his brethren also—that he was himself raised in the elevation of his brother. But envy does not allow a man to reason, and the more nearly related the person who awakens envy is to the envious man the more does the latter seem to feel that he has been wronged. It is to David that Jesse’s family owe their place in the Scripture record and in the annals of their nation. If it had not been for him we should never have heard the name of Jesse or his sons. Through him the name of his father is for ever coupled with the name that is above every name (Isaiah 11:1), and yet envy and reproach was his portion among his brethren.

III. Envy and insolence will be silenced by meekness and truth. David here uses weapons against his brother which were as effectual to silence him as his sling was to slay the giant. He has but to appeal to the facts, first that he has come there in obedience to his father’s command, and secondly that the Philistine giant has been for many days asking for an Israelite to fight him and none has answered his challenge. “Is there not a cause?” says David, “Have I come without an errand?” and “Is there not a need that some one else should come into the camp besides those who are already in it?” To this question of David, asked without any upbrading, Eliab must have found it difficult to reply—there was nothing in it to provoke him to further wrath, but everything to awaken him to reason. David here displays his forbearance and his wisdom.

OUTLINES AND SUGGESTIVE COMMENTS

1 Samuel 17:28. Eliab sought for the splinter in his brother’s eye, and was not aware of the beam in his own. The very things with which he charged his brother—presumption and wickedness of heart—were most apparent in his scornful reproof.—Kiel.

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 honour of Israel and Israel’s God, Eliab in his low and blind zeal thinks only of the flock of sheep and the possible loss of them from lack of oversight; the type of a narrow soul, incapable of great thoughts and deeds.—Lange’s Commentary.

In times of general formality and lukewarmness, every degree of zeal which implies a readiness to go further or venture more in the cause of God than others do will be censured as pride and ambition, and by none more than near relations and negligent superiors; and such censures will seldom be unmingled with unjust insinuations, slanders, and attempts to blacken a man’s character.—Scott.

It is quarrel enough, amongst many, to a good action, that it is not their own; there is no enemy so ready, or so spiteful as the domestical. The malice of strangers is simple, but of a brother it is mixt with envy. The more unnatural any quality is, the more extreme it is; a cold wind from the south is intolerable. David’s first victory is of himself, next of his brother. He overcomes himself in a patient forbearance, he overcomes the malicious rage of his brother with the mildness of his answer. If David had wanted spirit, he had not been troubled with the insultation of a Philistine … That which would have stirred the choler of another, allayeth his. It was a brother that wronged him, and that his eldest. Neither was this time to quarrel with a brother, while the Philistines’ swords were drawn, and Goliath was challenging. O that these two motives could induce us to peace! If we have injury in our person, in our cause, it is from brethren, and the Philistines look on.—Bishop Hall.