David and Goliath
QUESTION
Slingers were a fairly standard facet of warfare predating David (Judges 20:16). Saul had slingers at the time of David (1 Chronicles 12:2). A slinger would send a rock at speeds over 100 mph and kill at over 100 yards with amazing accuracy. They were the snipers of that day. They typically shunned armor, so as to be light and nimble, preferring instead to run before the heavy troops toward the enemy line firing until they ran out of ammo or got in range of the enemy's javelin and bows. This tactic is basically what is described in 1 Samuel. I ponder have we romanticized a youth into a boy instead of an impressive young warrior. And if so, what if any messages change, especially in our time? (Anonymous)
RESPONSE
My comments follow…
Slingers were a fairly standard facet of warfare predating David (Judges 20:16) and Saul had slingers at the time of David (1 Chronicles 12:2). A slinger would send a rock at speeds over 100 mph and kill at over 100 yards with amazing accuracy. They were the snipers of the day.
I do not doubt that they were deadly weapons, somewhat analogous to modern snipers in that they could kill at a distance but I can’t speak to the actual metrics.
They typically shunned armor, so as to be light and nimble, preferring instead to run before the heavy troops toward the enemy line firing until they ran out of ammo or got in range of the enemy's javelin and bows.
I don’t know this but it seems reasonable that this mode of attack required more agility in a way that made armor undesirable. It also seems that armor would be less needful, given their ability to strike from distances greater than the range of many other weapons.
This tactic is basically what is described in 1 Samuel.
David certainly used a weapon with which he as familiar that could kill at a distance.
I ponder have we romanticized a youth into a boy instead of an impressive young warrior.
When I refer to David as a “boy” I’m speaking of someone who is below the age of military service in that day, which means he was under 20 years old (Numbers 1:3) even as Saul himself states (I Samuel 17:33). I do not doubt that David was an impressive person in some respects but he certainly had no reputation as an impressive warrior among those who commented on his desire to take up Goliath’s challenge. He is treated like a “kid brother” by Eliab (I Samuel 17:28). Saul’s assessment based on appearance is that David is ill equipped for any sort of military engagement, let alone with Goliath (I Samuel 17:33). When David makes his case for why he can defeat Goliath, it is based on the Lord being with him, not on his familiarity with specific military tactics. Interestingly, it does not seem that he used a distant, slinging tactic to defeat the lion or the bear, but some close combat technique (I Samuel 17:35). If David’s approach was an agreed upon military tactic, using a weapon with which David was familiar and capable, that Saul recognized as part of his standard arsenal, it would seem that David’s conversation with Saul might have mentioned this fact. Something like:
“I know I’m too young to be in your army, but doesn’t your army use slingers and are they not deadly from a distance? I’ve used one for years with great accuracy. All I’m saying is let me go out and use a standard military tactic to defeat Goliath.”
But we do not find this in the narrative. Instead, we see David making reference to the deliverance of God in previous circumstances and his confidence that God will deliver him here as well. Neither do we see Saul reacting in any way that would affirm David as an impressive young warrior. His suggestion that he put on armor seems to be saying, “I can’t send a boy out to die without any armor with everyone watching. What will people say?” That’s how it seems to me, anyway. At a minimum, Saul’s suggestion that David wear his armor strongly indicates that Saul had no notion of David’s intent to use a slinging technique against Goliath. Saul’s suggestion that David put on his armor is inconsistent with the best practice for a sling-based attack.
In addition to that, Goliath refers to David as a “youth, and ruddy, with fair countenance.” John Gill interprets this comment to mean that David “looked effeminate, had not the appearance of a soldier, of a weather beaten veteran, exposed to heat and cold, and inured to hardships.” Hardly the image of an impressive warrior. It seems evident that David was not anything that anyone would fear in a military context and that his defeat by Goliath in this circumstance by all external observers was a foregone conclusion.
In the final mix, I do not believe that we have overly romanticized the story of David and Goliath beyond what we find in the biblical narrative:
David was under 20 years old (Numbers 1:3)
David was not considered an impressive warrior by his people (I Sam 17:28,33).
His bravery was extraordinary, no military man was willing (I Samuel 17:24).
Saul thought he needed armor to have a chance (I Sam 17:38-39)
Goliath called him a “youth, ruddy, with fair countenance” (I Samuel 17:42).
And if so, what if any messages change, especially in our time?
I don’t think our time changes anything about the fundamental lessons derived from the story of David and Goliath which include:
God is with his people.
God provides the strength they need to defeat the opposition of the world.
Serving God in obedience and faith is not an “old person” thing.
God works in the lives of the young and honors their service of faith.
Our strength is not found in our external countenance, but in the living God.
It is possible to receive terrible counsel even within the Kingdom.
Living by faith often involves confronting both external and internal opposition.
Following the “seems right doctrine” is often dead-wrong.
Having said that, the way we apply those principles today may be different than in earlier times, given the particular challenges we face.
- Elder Daniel Samons